University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO CITY COUNCIL INCIVILITY:
AN EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS

by

Kevin Ryan Kearney

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2023

Copyright 2023 Kevin Ryan Kearney

ii
EPIGRAPH

Don’t discount the power of your words. The thought that they might cause
unnecessary hurt or discomfort should inform every conversation. To speak kindly, you
need to be aware constantly that you are speaking to living, breathing, vulnerable human
beings.
- P. M. Forni (2010)

iii
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful bride, Dulce, who has been a source of
strength, support, patience, and motivation for me throughout this entire experience. Without
you, none of this would have been possible. Thank you for being my chief encourager,
confidant, and best friend – to you I owe everything and more.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Peter Robertson, for his guidance
throughout this entire project. His knowledge, encouragement, support, and guidance helped
make this research venture possible. Thank you also to my other two committee members, Dr.
William Resh and Dominic Lazzaretto, for the mentorship and assistance during this process.
Lastly, surviving this research project and the doctoral program would not have been
possible without the camaraderie from the DPPD Cohort 2018. This includes – Holly Priebe
Sotelo, Myles McCadney, Jessica Hefes, Sara Straubel, Tim Walsh, Kerri Yoder Hubbard, and
Brian Micro. Your friendship and encouragement have made wonderful lifetime memories.
Thank you for being you.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EPIGRAPH ..................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v
LISTS OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 11
Key Literature ..................................................................................................................... 12
Research Problem ............................................................................................................... 16
Research Question .............................................................................................................. 17
Research Purpose ............................................................................................................... 18
Worldview / Overarching Paradigm ................................................................................... 18
Method ................................................................................................................................ 19
Quantitative Approach ............................................................................................. 20
Application for Advancement ............................................................................................ 23
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 25
Civility ................................................................................................................................ 25
Criticism ................................................................................................................... 28
Incivility ............................................................................................................................. 30
National Trends ........................................................................................................ 30
Workplace Incivility ........................................................................................................... 31
A Historical Perspective of Research ...................................................................... 31
Outcomes of Workplace Incivility ..................................................................................... 34
Individual Outcomes ................................................................................................ 34
Affective Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 34
Cognitive Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 35
Behavior Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 36
Attitudinal Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 36
Organizational Outcomes......................................................................................... 37
In the Government Setting ................................................................................................. 38
Importance of Understanding .................................................................................. 38
Incivility in the Government Setting........................................................................ 39
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 44
Purpose of the Study / Summary Literature ....................................................................... 44
vi
City Council Incivility: A Theoretical Argument for Causation ........................................ 45
Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 46
Research Design ................................................................................................................. 46
Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 47
Setting, Population, and Sample .............................................................................. 47
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................... 50
Workplace Incivility ................................................................................................ 50
Organizational Affective Commitment.................................................................... 51
Trust with City Council ........................................................................................... 51
Organizational Citizenship Behavior ....................................................................... 52
Public Service Motivation........................................................................................ 52
Reliability of Scales ............................................................................................................ 53
Sample ................................................................................................................................ 53
Survey Response Rate.............................................................................................. 53
Demographics .......................................................................................................... 54
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 59
Organizing Raw Data and Preparation for Analysis ................................................ 59
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................... 60
Internal and External Validity ............................................................................................ 60
Protection of Human Subjects ............................................................................................ 61
Storage and Protection of Data ........................................................................................... 62
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 62
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 63
Preliminary Analysis .......................................................................................................... 63
Descriptive Statistics of Independent and Dependent Variables ............................. 63
Box Plots and Outliers ............................................................................................. 64
Incivility Incidence Rates ........................................................................................ 67
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients .......................................................................... 68
ANOVAs and T-Tests ........................................................................................................ 69
Region of Employment ............................................................................................ 70
Population of City .................................................................................................... 70
Job Position .............................................................................................................. 73
Gender ...................................................................................................................... 73
Race/Ethnicity .......................................................................................................... 73
Level of Education ................................................................................................... 74
Regression Analysis ........................................................................................................... 75
Organizational Affective Commitment.................................................................... 76
Trust with City Council ........................................................................................... 78
Organizational Citizenship Behavior ....................................................................... 79
Public Service Motivation........................................................................................ 80
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 82
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 83
Summary of Results ........................................................................................................... 83
Discussion of the Results ................................................................................................... 85
Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................................... 91
vii
Implications of the Results for Practice ............................................................................. 92
Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................................ 97
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 99
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 101
APPENDIX A: IRB INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH ............................................ 121
APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................................................ 124

viii
LISTS OF TABLES
Table 1: Reported α for all Independent and Dependent Variables .............................................. 53
Table 2: Demographics - Region of Employment ........................................................................ 55
Table 3: Demographics - Population of City ................................................................................ 56
Table 4: Demographics - Job Position & Hierarchy ..................................................................... 57
Table 5: Demographics – Race & Ethnicity ................................................................................. 58
Table 6: Demographics - Level of Education ............................................................................... 59
Table 7: All Independent & Dependent Variables’ N, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviations 64
Table 8: Data from Boxplots ......................................................................................................... 65
Table 9: Pearson Correlation Coefficients with Study Variables ................................................. 68
Table 10: Means (M) of Survey Variables with # of Participants (N) and Standard Deviations
(SD) ................................................................................................................................... 71
Table 11: Tukey HSD: Multiple Comparisons - Statistically Significant Variables .................... 72
Table 12: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Organizational Affective Commitment,
Region of Employment, Job Position, and Level of Education ........................................ 77
Table 13: Regression Model – Witnessed Incivility, Organizational Affective Commitment,
Region of Employment, Job Position and Level of Education ......................................... 77
Table 14: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Trust with City Council, and Job Position
........................................................................................................................................... 78
Table 15: Regression Model – Witnessed Incivility, Trust with City Council, and Job Position 79
Table 16: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Organizational Citizenship Behavior,
Population of City, and Job Position................................................................................. 79
Table 17: Regression Model – Witnessed Incivility, Organizational Citizenship Behavior,
Population of City, and Job Position................................................................................. 80
Table 18: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Public Service Motivation, Region of
Employment, Job Position, Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Level of Education .................. 81
Table 19: Regression Model: Witnessed Incivility, Public Service Motivation, Region of
Employment, Job Position, Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Level of Education .................. 82

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Experienced and Witnessed Incivility Boxplots ........................................................... 66
Figure 2: Boxplot of Dependent Variables ................................................................................... 66

x
ABSTRACT
There have been recent discussions between practitioners in the city management field
regarding city council incivility, but few, if any, have specifically studied how municipal
employees react to their governing body’s incivility. This study aims to understand how
municipal employees’ experiences with city councilmember incivility affects their organizational
affective commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, level of trust with the city council,
and public service motivation. A cross-sectional, convenience sampling was utilized in this
quantitative study, and survey participants derived from multiple professional organizations
throughout the State of California that comprised of municipal employees. Survey response was
N = 517, and analyses revealed that ninety-one percent (91%) of respondents had endured some
form of incivility from their city councilmembers while at their municipality in the previous five
(5) years. This study also found that a negative relationship exists with a municipal employee’s
direct experience with city council incivility and their organizational affective commitment, trust
with the city council, and a positive relationship with their organizational citizenship behavior.
Indirectly witnessing of city councilmember incivility with another municipal employee
negatively affects their organizational affective commitment, trust with the city council, and their
public service motivation. Findings demonstrate that municipal employees’ experiences, in
some form, with city councilmember incivility is both widespread and impactful to the
organization. Study outcomes add to a growing body of literature on organizational incivility by
focusing on a limited research population – municipal government employees – and is useful to
broadening practitioner understanding and knowledge on the subject topic.

11
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Workplace incivility is a significant problem in the United States, and local governments
are not immune from the issue. Scholars have found that incivility in the workplace affects both
individuals and organizational performance (Cortina et al, 2017; Estes & Wang, 2008; Person &
Porath, 2005; Person & Porath, 2004; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Cortina, et al., 2001). Aside from
recognizing the effects of employee-to-employee incivility, it also seems important to understand
how elected officials’ behaviors and actions may be affecting the organizations’ they have been
tasked to oversee.
There have been recent discussions between practitioners in the city management field
regarding mayoral and city council incivility and how it negatively affects organizational
performance, among other things. For example, Gould (2019) states that elected officials’ lack
of civility impedes governance in ways of undermining employee retention and recruitment.
Benest (2018) notes that city council incivility undercuts efforts to accomplish community goals
and to attract and retain professional talent. In 2014, the League of Minnesota Cities and
Minnesota City/County Management Association formed a Joint Task Force to investigate local
elected officials’ incivility. The report found that there were an increasing number of cities and
counties reporting deteriorating relations and toxic interactions (Greensweig et al., 2016). This
decline of civility, Manuel (2020) argues, “does not bode well for…our local communities” as it
erodes the public’s confidence in municipal institutions.
Research has also demonstrated that employees in government organizations experience
incivility through toxic interactions between city councils, mayors, and/or city managers, and
through interacting with citizens (Slattery, 2019; Vogelsang-Coombs, 2012). In the public
sector, incivility can lead to decreased job satisfaction and increased turnover (Bright, 2008), a
12
decrease in effective governance (Nelson et al., 2011), an erosion of public trust with citizens
(Mutz & Reeves, 2005), and potentially fewer younger individuals desiring to enter into the
public service career field (Smothers & Lawton, 2017).
As discussed, past research has shown that incivility produces negative reactions, and
previous practitioner discussions allude to negative employee reactions to elected officials’
incivility. This study strives to utilize existing incivility research as a springboard to understand
local government employees’ reactions to their governing body’s incivility.
Key Literature
Organizational incivility is well documented between employee-to-employee with
supervisors, subordinances, coworkers, and workplace observers. As originally outlined by
Andersson & Pearson (1999, p. 457), workplace incivility is defined as:
Low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of
workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude,
discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others.
Andersson & Pearson’s (1999) article is a foundational piece in organizational incivility
literature and establishes that incivility involves acting rudely or discourteously, without regard
for others. These actions violate the workplace norms of respect in social interactions. The
article argues that all workplaces have particular norms that differ across organizations,
industries, and cultures that stem from formal and informal organizational policies, rules, and
procedures. Although variations exist between organizations, the article argues that there are
universal workplace norms that deal with both physical and mental safety to allow for
cooperation in the workplace. These ideals are founded upon the mutual understanding for
respect, and incivility is a violation of these norms. The problem is that when these norms are
13
violated, incivility spirals occur that result in increased occurrence and escalation of incivility
within the organization.
Expanding upon this initial research is Cortina et al.’s (2001) article which sought to
measure incivility in workplaces throughout the United States. Previous work conducted had
offered a glimpse into workplace incivility, but there were several limiting factors. The authors
argued that the phenomena being examined only partially overlapped with workplace incivility,
as defined by Andersson and Pearson (1999). The second significant issue was that previous
empirical studies were measuring behaviors in Scandinavian countries. Since violent behaviors
and workplace norms varied considerably between Scandinavia and the United States, the
previous research findings may not be directly generalizable between the two countries’
employees. As such, the article sought to measure workplace incivility among a large and
representative U.S. sample of employees. This was done by developing the Workplace Incivility
Scale (WIS) that measured participants’ experiences of disrespectful, condescending, or rude
behaviors from their superiors or coworkers within the previous five (5) years. The article is
foundational in that results demonstrate that workplace incivility in the United States is quite
prevalent, with over two-thirds of their employees surveyed reporting disrespect, condescension,
and social exclusion, among others. Additionally, the WIS tool became a widely used tool to
measure workplace incivility that is utilized even today.
Cortina et al. (2001) found that employees were more likely to quit their jobs when they
experience frequent acts of incivility, and Kabat-Farr et al. (2018) sought to examine anger, guilt,
and the role of organizational commitment from those that have experienced workplace
incivility. Their findings suggest that those in the organization that have high commitment
reported a more negative response to incivility compared to those less committed. Moreover, the
14
researchers concluded that incivility in the workplace affects those most cherished employees
that are highly committed to the organization, as they are most harmed when incivility arises.
Commitment is important as it can be defined as an employee’s emotional attachment to an
organization through self-identification, and involvement with, an organization (Mercurio, 2015;
Meyer et al., 2002; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Scholars have argued that an
employees’ emotional bond to their organization is an important determinate of dedication and
loyalty (Rhoades et al., 2001). For example, those who are affectively committed to their
organization were found as having a sense of belonging and identification, which increases their
involvement in their organization’s activities, increases their willingness to pursue their
organization’s goals and desire to remain employed at their organization (Rhoades et al., 2001;
Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982). Scholars have also found associations between
affective commitment and absenteeism, performance and especially turnover (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982). Methodologically, Kabat-Farr et al.’s (2018)
study invited respondents to participate in short online surveys through a wide rate of outlets. Of
the 4,776 respondents, 3,593 had expressed interest in completing a longer survey. The
researchers then sent a paper survey to 500 random respondents. Measurements included
Cortina et al.’s (2001) Workplace Incivility Scale, which assesses frequency of incivility.
Organizational affective commitment was measured utilizing Meyer et al.’s (1993) six-item
scale.
Barling (1996) linked interpersonal mistreatment to a host of emotional consequences,
such as fear and distrust, which in turn influences occupational well-being. Expanding upon this
notion, Miner-Rubio & Reed (2010) sought to examine incivility in the workplace but with
work-groups. The study surveyed 90 employees of a property-management company and
15
measured variables such as incivility and organizational trust. Miner-Rubio & Reed (2010)
found that employees experiencing uncivil behavior from members of their workgroup began to
distrust the organization. This in turn made the employees think more about quitting their jobs.
Organizational Trust in their study was measured by utilizing the Interpersonal Trust at Work
scale (Cook & Wall, 1980).
Incivility in the workplace can also have an effect on one’s organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB). Defined as positive employee behaviors such as organizational obedience,
loyalty, participation and going above and beyond prescribed job duties to assist with achieving
organizational goals (Organ, 1998; Graham, 1991), Liu et al. (2018) found that workplace
incivility had a significant indirect effect on OCB through burnout. Their findings explained that
experiencing incivility might leave one feeling burned out and therefore provide fewer resources
to engage in OCB. The researchers used the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to
suggest that incivility threatens personal resources, leads to burnout, and taxes one’s energy
coping with the unpleasant encounters, instead of reserving them for job-related tasks. The study
utilized Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk and collected data over two (2) time points with three
(3) months in-between. This was done to minimize common method bias. The first sample
included 242 full-time employees, and the second sample included the same group of
participants but only 168 respondents were used in the second analysis for a host of reasons. The
Workplace Incivility Scale was used to determine incivility, and OCB was measured using a 10-
point scale developed by Spector et al. (2010).
Public Service can sometimes be deemed a special calling. Perry (1996) was one of the
first to advance the study of why individuals enter public service by coining the term Public
Service Motivation (PSM). The idea behind PSM is that public servants are fundamentally
16
different than their private sector counterparts and are motivated “to deliver service to people
with the purpose of doing good for others and society” (Hodeghem & Perry, 2009, p. 6). As
Christensen et al. (2017) discovered in their review of literature, organizations that nurture PSM
have employees that develop stronger ties with the organization’s values and goals. Strong PSM
can also assist employees better deal with stressors that offset their negative effects. However,
the researchers also discovered that such workplace stressors can also crowd out PSM, and they
utilize Bakker’s (2015) theoretical argument that states:
Public servants may become more and more exhausted because of high daily job
demands, and hence they may start to make mistakes and have concentration problems,
which will further burden daily job demands…The resulting and repeating daily
exhausting will have a negative influence on long-term PSM, as psychological
withdrawal is one of the possible options when levels of strain accumulate over time.
Bakker’s argument suggests that long term strain could negatively affect PSM by
undermining the positive aspects of PSM, such as employee engagement and job performance.
Among the recommendations presented to increase employee PSM, Bakker argues that it is
important to treat employees fairly, foster task significance, and offer support. In measuring
PSM, Kim et al. (2013) has expanded upon previous scales. The 16-point measurement
instrument is well-established and has been validated across 12 different countries. Kim et al.
(2013) distinguishes four dimensions of PSM, which include compassion, self-sacrifice,
attraction to public service, and commitment to public values.
Research Problem
Andersson & Pearson’s (1999) introduction of workplace incivility has paved the way for
researchers to study the topic through a wide variety of different methodologies, instruments, and
17
population samples. While the effects of workplace incivility have been conducted on a wide
variety of jobs and professions, the focus has been mainly on employee-to-employee incivility in
the private sector (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Some have studied government incivility (Cortina et
al., 2013; Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004; Cortina et al., 2001), fewer have studied
municipalities (Slattery, 2019), and even fewer have specifically studied how municipal
employees react to their governing body’s incivility.
Research Question
Workplace incivility has been well-documented over the years, and thousands of studies
have detailed the negative workplace aspects associated with the behavior (Schilpzand et al.,
2016). Exploring how local government employees react to their elected officials’ uncivil
actions serves to understand the issue at the municipal level.
This study seeks to understand municipal employee workforce reactions to both directly
experienced and indirectly witnessed city council incivility. This study will achieve its purpose
through answering the following research question:
How do municipal employees react to the incivility of their city councilmembers?
The literature has documented that workplace incivility negatively affects organizational
commitment (Cortina et al., 2001; Kabat-Farr et al., 2018), trust (Miner-Rubio & Reed, 2010),
organizational citizenship behavior (Liu et al., 2018), and Public Service Motivation (Bakker,
2015). Based on the review of literature, this study will seek to answer the primary research
question through a sub-set of research questions:
• Is an employee’s organizational commitment affected by city council incivility?
• Does city council incivility affect an employee’s level of trust with the city council?
• Does an employee’s organizational citizenship behavior react to city council incivility?
18
• Is an employee’s public service motivation affected by city council incivility?
Research Purpose
Practitioners have hinted about the negative effects of city council incivility. This
includes Gould’s (2019) non-academic argument that elected officials’ incivility impedes
governance and undermines employee retention and recruitment. Benest (2018) additionally
argues that city council incivility affects retention, recruitment, and undermines efforts to
accomplish community goals. While these arguments reside in nonacademic publications, there
has been limited scholarly research to test these claims.
The purpose of conducting this study is to bring scholarly and rigorous research to
understand local government employees’ reaction to city council incivility. Since a governing
body is elected to oversee a municipality, it is then critical to understand how employees in the
organization might be affected by their actions and behaviors.
Worldview / Overarching Paradigm
Underlying philosophical ideas and paradigms can play a key role in research; yet, they
often remain hidden in the development of theories (Slife & Williams, 1995). These implicit
ideas should be identified as they often influence research (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). For the
purposes of this discussion, the term worldview has been selected, which means “a basic set of
beliefs that guide action” (Guba, 1990, p. 17) to further describe the philosophical orientation of
this study.
This research is not without bias from an underlining worldview. The author of this
study is currently a city manager of a municipality, which is located in the State of California.
Throughout his tenure in local government, he has seen and experienced city council incivility
directed at both him and other colleagues, and he has both seen and felt the subtle unnamed
19
effects of such actions. The author also recognizes that he is not alone in realizing these impacts.
In March 2019, the author informally surveyed ten (10) city managers in the San Gabriel Valley
area and one (1) Statewide advocacy and support organization for city managers. The informal
survey asked one (1) simple question – “What are the 2-3 biggest challenges you are currently
facing in your job or with the profession?” The results contained a wide array of responses, but
there were commonalities between the city managers. Listed as the top challenge facing the
surveyed managers was incivility. This took a few forms – one of which were the negative
outcomes of city council incivility.
Given the already stated underlying assumptions, a postpositivist worldview guides the
present research study. A postpositivism worldview seek to identify and assess the causes that
influence outcomes, and works toward developing measurements that can study the behavior of
individuals (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This research was sparked by a theory surrounding
city council incivility, and the consequences of those actions, both direct and shared experiences
resulting from such incivility. As a postpositivist, the researcher has chosen to develop a study
that can serve to explain the situation of concern and one that describes the causal relationships
of interest (Phillips & Burbules, 2000).
Method
This study will utilize a quantitative, nonexperimental, design approach. Building off a
core definition from Creswell (2012), the researcher will use statistical analyses to examine the
relationships between study variables. By employing survey research, the goal, as Fowler (2008,
p. 99) describes, is to study respondents’ opinions, trends, attitudes, and feelings by using a
questionnaire for data collection, with the intention of generalizing from the sample to a
20
population. As such, this project involves the collection of quantitative data using closed-ended
survey questions to assist in responding to the project’s research questions.
Quantitative Approach
The instruments to construct the quantitative survey for this project will derive from key
literature, and was constructed with a focus on two specific points: minimization of response bias
and psychometric rigor. The former is addressed by placement of measures within the survey.
For example, incivility scales proceed scales intended to measure the effects of incivility. The
purpose of this placement is so that respondents’ uncivil experiences do not bias their
descriptions of affective commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, trust, etc. With
regards to content, the questionnaire covers demographics, and utilizes six (6) established
instruments drawn from the academic literature. Workplace incivility, both directly experienced
and indirectly witnessed, will be measured by utilizing Cortina, et al.’s (2001) 7-item Workplace
Incivility Scale (WIS), which assesses frequency of incivility over the past five (5) years. To
explore the effects of incivility, the survey will utilize Meyer, Allen & Smith’s (1993) 6-item
scale to measure organizational affective commitment; Spector, Bauer & Fox’s (2010) 10-item
scale to measure organizational citizenship behavior; Cook & Wall’s (1980) 6-item Interpersonal
Trust at Work scale that measures the confidence in the actions of management; and Kim et al.’s
(2013) Public Service Motivation scale by focusing on self-sacrifice and commitment to public
values, which comprises of an 8-item scale. The general negative affective disposition of
respondents will be measured by using two (2) items from the Life Orientation Test (Miner &
Eischeid, 2012; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994; Scheier & Carver, 1985). This is to ensure
that findings are due to incivility and not to a general negative affective disposition (Judge &
Hulin, 1993; Levin & Stokes, 1989). Some of the questions in these scales will be modified to
21
make them applicable to the elected officials of the respondents’ organizations, as opposed to
management, supervisors, and/or coworkers.
A cross-sectional, convenience sampling will be utilized as the methodological approach
in the quantitative analysis. Participants involved in the surveys would derive from multiple
professional organizations throughout the State of California that comprise of municipal
employees. The following is a list of five (5) organizations that have agreed to send out the
survey instrument through their listservs. While there may be overlap with a participant’s
membership, this allows for broader coverage of the survey:
➢ Municipal Association of Northern California (MMANC)
MMANC is comprised of more than 600 members that represent local governments
based in Northern California and seek to connect and develop low- and mid-level municipal
leaders who serve Northern California communities.
➢ Municipal Association of Southern California (MMASC)
MMASC is comprised of more than 800 members that represent local governments based
in Southern California and seeks to connect and develop low- and mid-level municipal leaders
who serve Southern California. MMANC and MMASC are ‘sister’ organizations.
➢ Cal-ICMA
In 2005, California created a new model for its affiliation on a state level with the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) members. Cal-ICMA is the
“official” state affiliate with ICMA and is inclusive of all ICMA members without creating
another “organization” with a separate dues structure.
➢ California City Management Foundation (CCMF)
22
CCMF strives to promote and encourage excellence in city management in all of
California’s 480+ incorporated cities and towns. Membership is available to all California city
managers and assistant city managers.
➢ California Women Leading Government (WLG)
Women Leading Government is an affiliate of the International City/County Management
Association and seeks to assist women succeed in public service through career development and
providing networking opportunities.
The sampling utilized in this project is based on both convenience and availability. The
limitation of this approach is that this is a nonprobability sampling. The intended purpose of this
study is to develop initial insight into the potential relationships between variables and generalize
about the larger population based on a sizable sample of municipal employees in the State of
California. Rivera (2019) argues that nonprobability sampling is useful in public administration
research when exploring initial variables’ relationships and developing knowledge. The goal is
an attempt to draw as representative and as large of a sample as possible so that results depict a
more accurate description of a phenomenon, as to produce a higher value (Lucas, 2016).
Once data is collected, the purpose of the survey research is to empirically evaluate whether
the measured incivility is correlated with the levels of organizational affective commitment,
organizational citizenship behavior, trust with the city council and/or public service motivation.
There will be several methodological approaches integrated into the quantitative analysis. While
this analysis of cross-sectional data cannot yield conclusions about causality, this project rests on
the theoretical argument that the incivility is likely to have an effect on the outcome variables as
opposed to those variables having a likely effect on the incivility.
23
SPSS will be utilized as part of the methodological analysis. The incidence rates for both
directly experienced and witnessed incivility will be analyzed to understand the rate of
occurrence. A series of multiple regression analyses will examine the effects of incivility on the
variables identified in this study.
Standardized coefficients are to be reported in all analyses. Certain demographics will be
statistically controlled since research suggests these variables differ with certain demographics,
such as gender, ethnicity, and position within the organization (Schipzand et al., 2016; Cortina et
al., 2013; Sliter et al., 2012; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012; Cameron & Webster, 2011; Lim & Lee,
2011; Trudel & Reio, 2011; Spence Laschinger et al., 2009; Porath et al., 2008; Martin & Hine,
2005; Cortina et al., 2001).
Application for Advancement
Research findings would add to the growing body of literature on organizational incivility
by focusing on a limited researched population – municipal government employees. The
approach to this study is also unique since much is to be understood about a municipal
employee’s reaction to the incivility of their city council.
Practitioners will find this research useful to broaden their understanding and knowledge
on the subject topic. The project would also serve as a springboard for others to identify ways to
assist employees with coping to any reaction city council incivility may spur. Additionally, this
study would act as a foundation for city council members to gain a better understanding of how
uncivil actions may affect their employee workforce.
The public also benefits from further workplace incivility studies in local government, as
all community residents are affected by the decisions of their local government leaders and the
productivity levels of their municipal employees. If employees are negatively reacting to the
24
governing body’s incivility through lower organizational commitment, lessoned positive
behaviors, decreased trust, and/or reduced motivation, those community members are not fully
experiencing the highest levels of governmental goods and services.
An increased understanding of an employee’s reaction to the incivility of their governing
body could serve to incentivize professional development training and other interventions by
local, state, and/or nationwide organizations that deal with municipal government employees or
elected officials on training, development, and advocacy. On a broader perspective, results from
this study would further the understanding of workplace incivility at the individual level in the
public administration and public leadership literature.

25
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Weber Shandwick, in partnership with Powell Tate and KRC Research, began
researching incivility in the public arena starting in 2010. Their research found that Americans
throughout the years are continuing to report that incivility is having a detrimental effect on the
future of the United States, including impeding democracy and its standing in the world. For
example, Shandwick et al.’s (2019) study found that the vast majority of Americans (93%) have
identified incivility as a problem, with 68% categorizing it as a “major” problem, and they are
not alone in their findings. Many others (Montanaro, 2018; Jamieson, et al., 2017; Theocharis et
al., 2016; Schilpzand et al., 2016) have documented similar increases in societal incivility and
have documented their impacts. The consequences of this incivility are important to understand
to ensure the health of individuals, organizations, and nations.
This review will examine the existing literature on both civility and incivility, the
historical groundwork of civility, and the criticisms associated with it. Next, it will focus on
incivility through examination of national trends and then cover the historical perspective of
incivility in the workplace. This review will then explore the outcomes of workplace incivility,
both at an individual and organizational level, and then provide context of workplace incivility in
the government sector by focusing the review at the municipal level. At the conclusion, it is
expected that the reader will grasp the concepts, backdrop, and associated problems, which will
pave the way for greater understanding for this study.
Civility
The term civility has been synonymous with the ideals of honor, dignity, and personal
respect throughout time and cultures (Whitman, 2000). This is because civility is one of
civilizations most honored and valued words, which is both nuanced and has immense depth, and
26
can be linked with duty and civilized behavior (Schaefer, 2015). The principles behind civility
have a long and rich evolutionary history dating back over 2500 years throughout civilization.
Originating in 509 BCE during the Roman era, Schaefer (2015, p. 104) details that the
Latin word civis means “citizen”. At that time, citizens were limited to property owning men.
The word evolved into civitas, which specified citizenship and the rights and duties thereof, and
then eventually civilitas, which detailed the art and science of citizenship. These rights detailed
that citizens could vote for elected officials in an assembly. It also meant that citizens have the
right to be governed, instead of ruled by autocrats.
The Greek world was also experiencing their own breakthroughs. Around the same
500BCE time period, the Greek governmental structures were morphing into democracies, where
male landowning citizens were debating, arguing, and voting in assemblies to create public
policy. As Schaefer (2015) details, “This political and civil world of the Greeks and Romans has
been passed on to us.”
By the Middle Ages, the word civility started to emerge in the English language, but its
usage had changed. The Republic and Citizens of the past were gone, and Europe’s lords and
vassals had replaced them. During these feudal times, civility was more about proper conduct,
submission, respect, service, cooperation and proper speech and dress. Schaefer (2015) states
that “civility became a social, political, that is, courtly word.”
The Renaissance period ushered in a new understanding of civility, which placed a
significant focus on more broad humanistic concerns. An influential scholar of the sixteenth
century, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, wrote an important piece on the subject of civility,
entitled De civilitate morum puerilium (meaning: On civility in children). According to Carter
(1998), it was Erasmus that popularized the idea that some people were civilized and others
27
uncivilized based on a set of measured behaviors that could distinctively separate the two groups.
At a time when people ate food with their hands, urinated in public, and defecated at the dining
table, Erasmus’ writings to Europe in 1530 was one of warning about their impulsive behaviors
and how it would affect the upbringing of society’s children. Erasmus explained that a control of
impulse desires is what differentiated the human species from other animals. As Carter (1998, p.
15) explains, “This self-discipline was the mark of civilization, he (Erasmus) maintained;
anything less was mere barbarism.”. It was Erasmus who most universalized the ideal of civilité,
from which the English word civility is most directly descended.
During Erasums’ time, the chivalrous society and the Catholic church were
disintegrating, so the Europeans were grasping for guidance on how to avoid killing each other
(Elias, 1978). The word civilité also shares commonalities with civilized and civilization, which
in the Indo-European root means “member of the household.” As Carter (1998) explains,
Erasmus would have understood this as the ideal that enables one another to live together under a
household, and as a civilized society, we are to be governed by certain standards that limit our
behaviors if we are to maintain relationships with each other.
Flash forward a bit to the eighteenth century with the American Revolution, French
Revolution, Declaration of Independence, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and
the Citizen, and one can see that the ideals of respect and demand for equal rights for everyone
were founded in the rights of citizenship (Schaefer, 2015). These bore the foundational spread of
presidential and parliamentary democracies and slavery abolition of the nineteenth century and
the liberation of women in the twentieth century. The 1948 United Nations General Assembly’s
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a key achievement as the ideal of civility seemed to
28
have reached universal heights (Schaefer, 2015); however, there are critics of civil standards,
which are discussed in the next section.
Criticism
The ideal behind civilité implies that there are shared rules of behavior that differentiate
between the civil and uncivil. While these principles can guide a shared community, rules are
not necessarily good just because they are rules. At times, rules of etiquette and civility can do
just the opposite. Feminist scholar Carol Gardner (1995) points out how the many etiquette rules
can work toward the disadvantage of women. As an example, she cites how etiquette suggested
in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that a female should take a man along with her as
a companion as a way not to be stigmatized as appearing alone. Gardner goes on to say that
“chaperons and escorts were recommended…for women making even modest forays outside the
home” (p. 20). Such forms of etiquette that serve to promote civility can easily promote
inequity.
The United State Supreme Court’s infamous 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson serves as
yet another prime example of how the ideals of civility can run amok. The landmark decision
upheld racial segregation laws for public facilities, as long as the facilities were equal in quality.
The doctrine became known as “separate but equal” (Groves, 1951). The constitutional law
remained fundamental for half a century and disguised uncivil behavior through forms of civility.
As Carter (1998, p. 16) explains, “black parents taught their children to use segregated restrooms
and to step aside on the street for white adults, and black men were warned not to make eye
contact with white women – simple matters of politesse.” Such examples are what Mayo (2001)
describes as “social discrimination” (p.79), as civility can be a mechanism for people to mask
29
social injustice and bigotry through politeness. She goes on to state that civility is a way for the
privileged to evade and distance themselves from social and political problems.
The power dynamics associated with civility is a common argument against it, as the
unjust actions associated with civility is often what perpetuated racial segregation and other
social inequalities throughout time (Laverty, 2010). Additionally, Calhoun (2000) argues that
proper etiquette that distinguish the civilized from the barbaric are the same that separate the
upper from the lower classes and the polite society from the rabble. This class distinction can
often lead to a power struggle where one oppresses the other. Civility can also be used as a
weapon to suffocate debates by draining passion, silencing dissenting views, controlling the free
expression of the weak, and recasting disagreements in the name of etiquette and manners
(Calabrese, 2015; Connelly, 1999). Rather, Mayo (2001) suggests promoting incivility as to
“spread social discomfort to everyone” (p. 86), which brings the issue(s) to the forefront and
does not allow for the privileged to be distant from the issue.
There are critics to Mayo’s (2001) promotion of incivility. Rood (2013) agrees that
civility can, at times, be used as a way to serve the interests of the powerful, but refutes the need
to promote incivility. Rather, he contends that civility allows for dissent, allowance of multiple
voices to be heard, and permits persuasive speech, as civility functions to “slow down and focus
arguments, thereby creating time and space to explore differences and disagreements in ways
that help all involved commit to understanding and being understood, respecting and being
respected” (Rood, 2014, p. 410). Practiced the correct way, civility can make more livable lives
for all people and “illustrates how civility makes not only speech, but life, more opportune where
incivility forecloses possibilities.” (Spencer et al., 2016, p. 61; Spencer & Lynch, 2014). The
next section discusses some of the pitfalls of incivility.
30
Incivility
National Trends
Overall, there is a general agreement that there is an increased amount of uncivil
discourse over the years, which may be attributed to 24/7 news media, talk radio, and internet
Web blogs (Jamieson et al., 2017). As Herbst (2010, p. 26) points out, “the uncivil tendencies in
American culture are more apparent and abundant thanks to pervasive media.” After examining
10 weeks of data from political blogs, talk radio, and cable news, Sobieraj & Berry (2011) found
that “outrage discourse is extensive” (p.20) through all the listed forms a media and that this type
of discourse aims to incite a visceral response. Their study found that 89.6% of their studied
cases included at least one “outrage” incident (p. 26). Coe et al. (2014) found that in reviewing
online discussions from newspaper websites, “more than one out of every five comments was
uncivil, and 55% of the article discussions contained at lease some incivility” (p. 673).
Social media is also an area experiencing an incivility increase in society. Theocharis et
al. (2016) found that conversations over social media are “rifle with trolling and harassment
practices.” A study by Rheault et al. (2019) discovered that messages sent to politicians contain
incivilities and women are much more heavily targeted by uncivil messages than men. In the
Yun et al. (2020) study, the researchers found a broad range of negative comments and profane
language on more than one social media site when examining a controversial television contest.
Antoci et al. (2019) found that online incivility was considered “business as usual” in that
“incivility seems to be perceived as the norm of online interaction, rather than the exception.”
The researchers were so alarmed that they found it to be a “depressing finding” (p.15).
Recent polls have also confirmed incivility to be an issue. A 2018 survey by the National
Public and Marist Institute for Public Opinion showed that roughly 80% of voters state that they
31
are concerned with the negative tone and lack of civility in Washington to the extent that it
would lead to violence or acts of terror (Montanaro, 2018). Weber Shandwick, in partnership
with Powell Tate and KRC Research found that in 2019 the vast majority of Americans (93%)
believed that there was a problem with civility in America, with most categorizing it as a
“major” problem (67%). A 2020 Georgetown University’s Battleground Civility Poll found that
nine in ten voters (87%) believe “compromise and common ground should be the goal for
political leaders,” however, roughly the same percentage (84%) stated they are “tired of leaders
compromising their values and ideals and want leaders to stand up to the other side.”
Workplace Incivility
A Historical Perspective of Research
Organizational incivility is well documented in the workplace between supervisors,
subordinances, coworkers, and workplace observers. As originally outlined by Andersson &
Pearson (1999, p. 457), workplace incivility is defined as:
Low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of
workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude,
discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others.
Andersson & Pearson’s (1999) article is a foundational piece in organizational incivility
literature and establishes that incivility involves acting rudely or discourteously, without regard
for others. These actions violate the workplace norms of respect in social interactions. The
article argues that all workplaces have particular norms that differ across organizations,
industries, and cultures that stem from formal and informal organizational policies, rules, and
procedures. Although variations exist between organizations, the article argues that there are
universal workplace norms that deal with both physical and mental safety to allow for
32
cooperation in the workplace. These ideals are founded upon the mutual understanding for
respect, and incivility is a violation of these norms. The problem is that when these norms are
violated, incivility spirals occur that result in increased occurrence and escalation of incivility
within the organization.
A key argument in Andersson & Pearson’s (1999) article is that incivility within an
organization creates a series of spirals that spawn additional incivility. The starting point begins
with one party’s perception of incivility. This then produces a reciprocation of counterincivility,
which can escalate with an exchange of coercive actions toward the two parties until a tipping
point is reached. Up until this moment, it’s been a series of small injustices, but the tipping point
is the trigger where one of the parties involved recognizes the threat, which then leads to more
intense behavioral response by the threatened party. This then leads to stronger coercive action
toward one another. The authors argue that secondary spirals may also materialize. Meaning,
those initially involved in the incivility may displace their behavior toward an observer.
Additionally, the observer to the incivility exchange may model the seen behavior and direct it
toward another uninvolved party. The authors argue that these secondary spirals may not just
respawned by the direct experience or witnessing of the initial incivility. They argue that
employees in the organization may become aware of the increasing incivility within the
organization, and their response may amount to increasing levels of negative affect, distrust, and
fear. The breach of civility within an organization then alters employee attitudes to irritability,
intolerance, and fearfulness, which expends to minimal courtesies, and intolerance of others, thus
creating further incivility spirals within an organization.
Anderson & Pearson’s initial work has spawned a plethora of workplace incivility
research; however, scholars have argued that overall exploration has lacked a clear theoretical
33
framework (Miner et al., 2017; Schipzand et al., 2016). For example, Schipzand et al. (2016) has
called the current incivility research “quite fragmented” due to a lack of strong theoretical
direction. This in turn, they argue, makes it difficult for both academics and practitioners to
integrate and understand findings. The researchers persuade for developing a unified theoretical
framework that would interconnect experienced, witnessed, and instigated incivility in the
workplace. The authors suggest three (3) theoretical perspectives that may serve such a purpose.
First, Schipzand et al (2016) believe that either the trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003;
Tett & Guterman, 2000), the transactional model of stress (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984), or the affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) might serve as the
unifying frameworks in future research.
Miner et al. (2017) also recognizes the large volume of research sparked by Andersson
and Pearson’s (1999) foundational article but identifies “speedbumps” that have that may have
slowed advancement in the field. The researchers argue that identifying these issues, in turn, is
hoped to accelerate progress in the field. As Miner et al. (2017) argues, there more to workplace
incivility that the current thought of ambiguous intent to harm, a tit-for-tat response patter, and
incivility only occurring between the two-primary actors. Rather, the authors posit that
workplace incivility may have clear intent to harm, some may perceive the incivility as
functional and result in positive outcomes and could be a network phenomenon that occurs at
multiple organizational levels, such as with individuals and teams. The authors also contend that
incivility may lead to certain positive workplace outcomes, could abide by the norms of certain
organizational environments, and show a variety of possible response outcomes. The alternative
routes laid out by Miner et al. (2017) and the unifying theoretical frameworks proposed by
34
Schipzand et al. (2016) contend that the phenomenon reported throughout the literature needs to
be further understood both in research and in practice.
Historical trends in workplace incivility additionally points to the need for greater
understanding of the phenomenon and its effects. Over the past 14 years, Porath & Pearson
(2013) polled thousands of workers about their treatment in the workplace and found that 98%
have experienced uncivil behavior and 99% have witnessed it. In 2011, 50% said they were
treated rudely at least once a week, which was up from 25% in 1998. It is no wonder why Duffy
& Lee (2012) found that negative interpersonal exchanges in the workplace are rising, while
others have also contended that the incivility has been worsening and becoming more common
(Irum et al., 2020; Demsky et al., 2019; Schilpzand et al., 2016; Sliter, 2010). The following
section further describes the outcomes of incivility in the workplace.
Outcomes of Workplace Incivility
The last twenty years has seen workplace incivility emerge as an important topic of study
in organizational behavior research, as thousands of studies have examined negative workplace
behaviors at a variety of levels (Schilpzand et al., 2016). What has emerged from the literature is
how these behaviors affect the individual’s affective, cognitive, behavior, and attitudinal
perspectives. There are also organizational outcomes associated with a culture of workplace
incivility.
Individual Outcomes
Affective Outcomes
The literature demonstrates that there are affective outcomes to those that experience
workplace incivility. These reactions include heightened emotionality and emotional labour
(Bunk & Magley, 2013; Adams & Webster, 2013; Sliter et al., 2010), negative emotions (Sakurai
35
& Kex, 2012; Kim & Shapiro, 2008;), depression (Miner et al., 2012; Lim & Lee, 2011),
emotional drain and exhaustion (Moon & Hur, 2018; Sliter et al., 2010; Kern & Grandey, 2009),
embarrassment (Hershcovis et al., 2017), lower affective trust (Cameron & Webster, 2011),
anger (Liu et al., 2020); decreased levels of energy (Kim & Qu, 2019; Giumetti et al., 2013), and
increased stress levels (Miner et al., 2010; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Cortina et al., 2001). Porath &
Pearson (2012) found that targets of workplace incivility feel increased fear, anger, and sadness,
while Bunk & Magley (2013) reports lower levels of optimism. As shown, targets have affective
reactions to workplace incivility, and it additionally extends to their personal lives. These
workplace experiences can spillover and create work-family conflict (Zhou et al., 2019; Lim et
al., 2018; Ferguson, 2012; Lim & Lee, 2011) and low levels of family satisfaction (Liu et al,
2020), negatively affect marital satisfaction (Ferguson, 2012), decreases a target’s well-being
(Hershcovis, 2011; Lim et al., 2008; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Cortina et al., 2001) and creates
mental health problems, which in turn could develop into poor physical health (Lim et al., 2008).
Cognitive Outcomes
Researchers have documented that cognitive reactions are associated with workplace
incivility. Porath & Erez (2007) found that incivility lowers a target’s task-related memory
recall, while Lim & Lee (2011) report lower perceived fairness. In their study over a five-year
period, Cortina et al. (2011) reports that the symptoms of psychology distress were found in
employees that had uncivil encounters. Other researchers reported additional cogitative
outcomes related to workplace incivility, such as anxiety, psychological distress, (De Clercq et
al., 2018; Langlois et al., 2007), and cognitive difficulties (Barling et al., 2001). Pearson et al.
(2000) found that a majority of targets that experience workplace incivility lost time at work
because they worried about the incivility incident(s) that occurred.
36
Behavior Outcomes
A number of employee behavioral responses are associated with experienced workplace
incivility. Targets of such uncivil behaviors are shown to reduce behavioral performance, such
as task performance (Giumetti et al., 2013; Sliter et al., 2012; Porath & Erez, 2007), citizenship
behavior (Mackey et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2012; Porath & Erez, 2007), and creativity (Porath
& Erez, 2007). Behavioral reactions of targets who experience incivility include increased
absenteeism (Sliter et al., 2012), work disengagement (Chen et al., 2013), lower levels of career
salience (Lim & Teo, 2009), turnover intentions (Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Lim et al., 2008),
withdrawal (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Cortina et al., 2001), and are more prone to display deviant
behaviors at work (Kim & Qu, 2019). Bunk & Magley (2013) found that targets of workplace
incivility are incited to reciprocate the incivility, and Kim & Shapiro (2008) adds that targets are
spurred to engage in retaliatory behaviors. Lim & Teo (2009) found that targets are more likely
to engage in deviant behaviors against their organization, where Penney & Spector (2005) and
Daniels & Jordan (2019) found that targets are more likely to be counterproductive.
Attitudinal Outcomes
Studies have found that workplace incivility can affect a target’s attitude in both the work
and personal life settings. Lim & Teo (2009) found that targets of incivility in the workplace are
less committed to their organization, while Sakurai & Jex (2012) found that targets are less
motivated as a result. Attitudinal results demonstrate that targets are less satisfied with
coworkers and supervisors (Bunk & Magley, 2013), and their place of employment (De Clercq et
al., 2019; Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Lim et al., 2008; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Cortina et al.,
2001). Studies have also shown that targets are also less satisfied in life than those who do not
experience workplace incivility (Miner et al., 2010; Lim & Cortina, 2005).
37
Organizational Outcomes
Research has shown that workplace incivility can significantly affect an organization, and
a loss of productivity is one area that researchers have explored. For example, scholars have
found that incivility within the workplace can cause absentee among employees (Zia-un-Din et
al., 2017), and decrease job performance (Arasli et al., 2018; Reio & Trudel, 2013). Porath
(2016) found through her years of research that incivility in the workplace can decrease an
employee’s time at work, make an employee intentionally decrease their quality of work, are
three times less likely to help others, and their willingness to share decreases by half. Johnson &
Indvik (2001) found that executives spent more than 13 percent of their time, which is equivalent
to 6.5 weeks a year, mediating conflicts between employees.
Workplace incivility can bring about a wide range of financial costs to an organization
too. Jensen et al. (2019) found that retail stores with higher level of incivility had higher forms
of inventory loss due to employee shoplifting and theft. Incivility in the workplace can also
cause an employee to consider leaving their position to another organization (Mackey et al.,
2019; Rahim & Cosby, 2016; Holm et al., 2015; Ghosh et al., 2013). Employee turnover
intentions is an important financial element to consider, especially since a study by Cascio
(2006) estimated that the fully burdened cost of replace a worker who leaves the job can cost the
employer 1.5 to 2.5 times the annual salary paid for the position.
As discussed, studies have found that workplace incivility can affect employee
productivity in an organization and cause a wide range of financial implications. This is
important in a business setting and maybe even more critical in a government setting. Since
government is supported by the general populace through taxation, it is critical that workplace
incivility in government be understood, which is discussed in the following section.
38
In the Government Setting
Importance of Understanding
The general role of government is to promote the overall welfare of the populace, which
can be achieved in different ways and at different levels. Government may play a role in the
economy by providing goods and services that the people cannot individually provide for
themselves, fulfil the fundamental duties of safety, prosperity and justice, levy taxes, create and
maintain laws and justice, borrow money, and uphold economic order, stability, and growth to
achieve economic and social objectives. There are various levels of government in the United
States that work to provide these types of goods and services, but this paper focuses on the local
level within the State of California.
Municipal governments in California are those typically defined as a city or town
(California Government Code §34502). Municipalities are generally responsible for achieving
the general welfare of the populace by overseeing parks and recreation services, housing, police
and fire departments, transportation services, emergency medical services, and public works
activities, such as signage, streets, and sewers, to name a few. In general, the governing bodies
that oversee these municipalities, such as mayors and city councils, are directly elected by the
residing population. These elected officials exercise their power and responsibilities over their
municipal organization to bring improved social, economic, and environmental viability and
sustainability for the populace they serve (Jordaan, 2013). In exchange for power, the populace
maintains an expectation that their tax dollars will be spent and managed efficiently (Oliveira,
2012).
Efficient management of municipal resources has become a significant issue in current
times due to the continual financial strain on local governments, while at the same time trying to
39
meet the level of demands of local public goods. The recent global financial crises have sparked
heightened interest in the sustainability of local government finances, and society has grown
concerned over the limitations on public revenues and expenditures (Balaguer-Coll et al., 2019;
Seifert & Nieswand, 2014). In California, local government revenue structures have been
severely impacted since the 2000s, as the recensions over the last 20 years have been regarded as
some of the worst in global history (Egan, 2014). As such, economic recessions have become
the new normal for local governments (Park, 2017). These economic challenges are further
exacerbated by the imposed constraints and pressures from the restriction of property tax
increases from Proposition 13 and the increasing contributions to the State’s California Public
Employees’ Retirement System (Lin, 2018; Carroll & Johnson, 2010).
While there are significant constraints to local government, there are still expectations for
elected officials to perform to the level of their constituents’ satisfaction, and it is up to the
governing bodies to ensure their municipal organizations are operating at the highest efficiency
levels to meet the demand. Workplace incivility is one of those areas that threatens optimal
organizational performance, so it is imperative that the phenomena is fully understood.
Incivility in the Government Setting
The purpose of government, municipal government specifically, is to supply certain
goods and services so that the local needs can be met. Without an adequate organizational
environment, the municipality cannot offer maximized service levels to the general populace.
One of the areas that affects these organizational services is workplace incivility. Vasconcelos’s
(2020) extensive review of workplace incivility over a 19-year period (2000-2019) covers that
various peer-reviewed publications, most of which show the costs of incivility to both
individuals and organizations. To maximize services aimed to improve quality of life, it is
40
imperative that workplace incivility in the government setting be fully understood, especially
since studies have found the public sector to be at higher risk of employee mistreatment than the
private sector (Zapf et al., 2003; Salin, 2001).
One of the first studies on workplace incivility was conducted on a government
organization. In 2001, Cortina et al. collected data from 1,180 public-sector employees to
investigate their experience with workplace incivility over the previous 5-years. The researchers
found that 71% reported incivility in their workplace, which was associated with higher levels of
psychological distress, and one-third of executive level employees instigated the uncivil acts.
Zauderer (2002) qualitatively interviewed 20 public sector and non-profit employees to
understand how experienced incivility was personally felt through their perspective and stories.
Zauderer (2002) defined incivility as “disrespectful behavior that undermines the dignity of self-
esteem of employees and creates unnecessary suffering” (p. 38) and considers incivility as
behaviors that lack concern for others’ well-being as they would expect to be treated. Through
his interviews, the researcher found that the most damaging form of incivility diminished the
individual’s professional identity, which reduced their involvement with colleagues and the
organization. As such, “some employees make the decision to give less to the organization as a
result of incivility (Zaunderer, 2002, p. 40).
A study of 7,292 public sector employees in New Zealand by Plimmer et al. (2017)
showed that 43% of respondents experienced bullying in the workplace and a third (33%) stated
that they had experience discrimination. Their research also demonstrated that organizational
mistreatment is likely to decrease in an organization if employees perceive to have influence
over their jobs, can express their views, feel that they receive support from managers, sense that
promotional decisions are fair, and have access to work that is flexible. According to Plimmer et
41
al. (2017), their findings promote “transparency, accountability and capability to avoid conflict,
or at least resolve it” (p. 337). The researchers also suggest formal processes that protect
employees, which they found lessens mistreatment at work.
At a municipal level, both academics and practitioners have sought to understand the
causes of city council incivility. Researchers have argued that the lack of civility with
councilmembers stems from polarization between councilmembers (Vogelsang-Coombs, 2012),
unwittingly engaging in dysfunctional and ineffective practices (Nelson et al., 2011), and from
the rise of social media (Rains, 2019). Meanwhile, practitioners have also discussed the causes
of city council incivility. These include a more divisive public in forms of harassment, abuse or
violence (Kuehne, 2022; Novak, 2016), an increase of political incivility and bullying elsewhere
that is making its way into the city council chambers (Kalen-Sukra, 2019), cyber bullying from
social media (Anthony, 2021), and lack of civic engagement and transparency (Cohn, 2022;
McGrath, 2016). As a result of these issues, more constituents are speaking out of frustration,
which only serves to increase incivility (Kuehne, 2022)
Vogelsang-Coombs (2012) studied city councils in the United States and focused on the
ways to address incivility. Ultimately, the researcher argues for five leadership skills that can
lead to a “Civil City Council” (p.210). These factors include training and empowering citizens,
balancing institutional autonomy and accountability, transforming dangerous political identities,
using the public service ethos, and learning the lessons of history. Training and empowering
citizens, the researcher argues, is about having citizens and councils learning from each other in
‘safe’ (p.210) environment where confidence can be built; whereas, balancing institutional
autonomy and accountability is about citizens formulating policy and utilizing shared standard
tools to evaluating the outcomes. Vogelsang-Coombs (2012) further argues that council’s should
42
transform dangerous political identities by being unresponsive to interest groups or political
identities that threaten democratic traditions, and by using a public service ethos through placing
the duty to serve the public interest at the center of the agenda and culture. Lastly, Vogelsang-
Coombs (2012) argues that a Civil City Council should learn from the lessons of history through
the limiting of frequent turnover by retaining institutional knowledge. Embracing these
leadership skills, the author argues, would enable councils to become more civil. Through her
qualitative interviews, Slattery (2019) found that local government leaders were more likely to
cope with incivility in the workplace if they exhibited high levels of Public Service Motivation.
Meanwhile, Nelson et al. (2011) found that the perceived interpersonal relationship between
councilmembers and a mayor’s leadership was related to perceptions of council effectiveness.
Research about workplace incivility in the local government setting has a natural relation
to the field of public administration (PA). Vickers (2006) pens a symposium arguing that the PA
field focuses on things that are not directly impactful to public employees and the people they
serve. Rather, PA should be concerned on what is occurring in PA organizations so that research
is not just relevant to scholars and politicians but also to PA practitioners providing direct
services to the public. One of these practical areas, as Vickers (2006) argues, is workplace
incivility in the public sector. As she argues, that “Public Administrators have much to lose
when workplace incivility occurs and escalates, not just for their own staff, but for the people
they serve” (p.81). The researcher recommends that academics start writing on what is relevant
to the workplace, rather than focusing on “management rhetoric” (p. 72) that has been produced
in the past.
43
Conclusion
The literature on incivility demonstrates real problems associated with its pervasiveness
in the workplace. Consequences at an individual level impact lives in affective, behavioral,
cognitive, and attitudinal ways. These individual reactions can spiral out of control and affect
the overall climate of an organization through a loss of productivity, as well as many other
financial implications. At a governmental level, these impacts are ultimately bore at the expense
of the general populace the organization serves. Residents, at a local level, are the ones who
miss out on premiere services or are the ones who need to financially cover the deficiencies
workplace incivility creates.
Although many studies have covered the consequences of incivility in the workplace both
in the private and public sector, more exploration is needed, especially since there is a scarcity of
research at the local government level. Even fewer studies have examined the reaction of
municipal employees to incivility in the workplace. The aim of this study is to further provide
understanding of how local government workers react to the uncivil behaviors of their city
council members and to add to the growing body of literature on overall workplace incivility.

44
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the methodological approach used for this study and describes the
descriptive statistics on the study’s variables. The study’s methodology is outlined in this
chapter through detailing the research design, specifying all research questions, instrumentation
used, reliability of scales, data collected, and provides a brief overview of how data was
analyzed. The descriptive statistics in this chapter review the variables’ central tendency,
demographical data collected, and initial survey responses. The chapter concludes by detailing
how this study protected the human subjects involved and safeguarded the collected data.
Purpose of the Study / Summary Literature
The purpose of this investigation is to understand how local government employees react
toward their city council’s incivility. The literature reflects a well-documented theme that
incivility in the workplace is impactful to organizational and employee wellness. Anderson &
Pearson (1999) first helped to define the concept of workplace incivility as acting rudely or
discourteously without a regard to others. Cortina et al. (2001) expanded upon this research by
developing the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) and found that over two-thirds of their
employees surveyed reported workplace instances of disrespect, condescension and social
exclusion, among others. Over time, researchers began to unravel incivility through discoveries
that it affects workers’ organizational commitment (Kabat-Farr et al., 2018), trust (Miner-Rubio
& Reed, 2010), organizational citizenship behavior (Liu et al., 2018), and public service
motivation (Bakker, 2015). How an employee reacts to another employee’s incivility in the
workplace has been well researched over the years (Schilpzand et al., 2016), but evidence on
how a local government employee reacts to city council incivility is limited.
45
City Council Incivility: A Theoretical Argument for Causation
There have been thousands of studies detailing the negative aspects associated with
workplace incivility, especially between a supervisor and employee (Schilpzand et al., 2016).
Many scholars have highlighted the role of power with incivility and how power has interacted
with uncivil behaviors to predict negative outcomes (Demsky, 2019; Hershcovis, 2011).
Hershcovis et al. (2017) found that victim’s embarrassment is strengthened when the perpetrator
of workplace incivility is powerful, which suggests that that perpetrators hold the power and
victims are of lower status (Demsky, 2019). In drawing on the psychological theories of power,
there have been a number of sources of power identified, which includes structural power,
resource control, and network centrality (Ketner et al., 2003; Astley & Sachdeva, 1984).
Because the research on incivility between city councilmembers and their organization’s
employees is limited, this study utilizes the academic literature on workplace incivility as a
theoretical springboard to argue a causation between the incivility of city council and the studied
variables. As an example, governing bodies of municipalities, such as mayors and city councils,
are directly elected by their residing population. These elected officials exercise their power and
responsibilities over their municipal organization, and its employees, to bring about improved
quality of life (Jordaan, 2013). The populace exchanges power with the governing body with an
expectation that their tax dollars will be spent and managed efficiently (Oliveira, 2012). This
power exchange provides the governing body with structural power, resource control, and
network centrally over their governing organization and employees, as defined by Ketner et al.
(2003) and Astley & Sachdeva (1984). As such, the power dynamics between a city
councilmember and an employee can be seen as closely mirroring the same dynamics between a
supervisor and employee, which has been studied extensively.
46
Research Questions
This study seeks to understand employee reactions to city council incivility and will
achieve its purpose through answering the following research question:
➢ How do municipal employees react to the incivility of their city councilmembers?
Because research in this area is limited, this study utilizes academic literature on
workplace incivility as a springboard to hypothesize about the research question. Based on the
review of literature (Cortina & Marchiondo, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Bakker, 2015; Kabat-Farr et
al., 2010; Cortina et al., 2001), this study will seek to answer the primary research question
through a sub-set of research questions:
• Is an employee’s organizational commitment affected by city council incivility?
• Does city council incivility affect an employee’s level of trust with the city council?
• Does an employee’s organizational citizenship behavior react to city council incivility?
• Is an employee’s public service motivation affected by city council incivility?
Research Design
To explore the research questions, this study utilized a quantitative, nonexperimental
design approach. Building off a core definition from Creswell (2012), the researcher used
statistical analysis to examine the relationship between study variables. By employing survey
research, the goal, as Fowler (2008, p. 99) describes, is to study respondents’ opinions, trends,
attitudes, and feelings by using a questionnaire for data collection, with the intention of
generalizing from the sample to a population. As such, this project involves the collection of
data using quantitative, closed-ended survey questions to respond to the project’s research
questions.
47
Cross-sectional, convenience sampling was utilized as the methodological approach in
this quantitative study. Rivera (2019) argues that nonprobability sampling is useful in public
administration research when exploring initial variables’ relationships and developing
knowledge. The goal is an attempt to draw as representative and as large of a sample as possible
so that results depict a more accurate description of a phenomenon, as to produce a higher value
(Lucas, 2016).
Data Collection
The independent and dependent variables were measured as discrete, ordinal variables.
The independent variables were the following: IV1 – experienced city council incivility and IV2
– witnessed city council incivility. The dependent variables were the following: DV1 –
organizational affective commitment, DV2 – trust with city council, DV3 – organizational
citizenship behavior, and DV4 – public service motivation.
Setting, Population, and Sample
This was an internet-based study. The survey instrument was constructed and distributed
through Qualtrics
®
, which is an online survey platform used for the creation and distribution of
surveys. The intended purpose of this study is to develop initial insight with local government
employees throughout the State of California. Data collection for this project consisted of
partnering with five (5) organizations throughout the State of California that comprised of
municipal employees. Since these organizations span large geographical areas across the State,
the researcher decided that surveying their membership base would be an effective strategy to
capture local government employee responses in California. The following is a list of five (5)
organizations that sent out the quantitative survey instrument through their listservs:
➢ Municipal Association of Northern California (MMANC)
48
MMANC comprises more than 600 members that represent local governments based in
Northern California and seeks to connect and develop entry- and mid-level municipal leaders
who serve Northern California communities.
➢ Municipal Association of Southern California (MMASC)
MMASC comprises more than 800 members that represent local governments based in
Southern California and seeks to connect and develop entry- and mid-level municipal leaders
who serve Southern California. MMANC and MMASC are ‘sister’ organizations.
➢ Cal-ICMA
In 2005, California created a new model for its affiliation on a state level with the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) members. Cal-ICMA is the
“official” state affiliate with ICMA and is inclusive of all ICMA members without creating
another “organization” with a separate dues structure.
➢ California City Management Foundation (CCMF)
CCMF strives to promote and encourage excellence in city management in all of
California’s 480+ incorporated cities and towns. Membership is available to all California city
managers and assistant city managers.
➢ California Women Leading Government (WLG)
Women Leading Government is an affiliate of the International City/County Management
Association and seeks to assist women succeed in public service through career development and
providing networking opportunities.
Prior to survey distribution, the researcher worked with the different organizations on
crafting a short message that described the survey as a general examination of “workplace
attitudes and experiences of local government workers in California.” The brief write-up
49
mentioned that the results are expected to progress understanding of the field in both a practical
and academic setting, and notified potential respondents that the survey is voluntary and
anticipated to take about ten (10) minutes to complete. The write up also affirmed that the
survey is confidential and not subject to a public records request. The goal of affirming
confidentiality was to ensure that respondents realized that their responses to any questions were
not going to be subject to public inspection so that they would feel comfortable answering
honestly. Because past research has found that incentives were an effective means of increasing
survey response rates (Sammut et al., 2021; Laguilles et al., 2011), respondents were told that
they could voluntarily enter a raffle to win one of five $100 Amazon gift cards.
Surveying commenced on September 28, 2021, and the organizations differed in the way
they partnered with this study. For example, one organization sent out the survey only once in
their monthly electronic newsletter, another organization included the survey in multiple weekly
blasts, and another sent out a singular, specific blast about the survey to all of their members, as
opposed to including it in a newsletter with multiple other items. The email sent from the
organization contained a brief explanation of the study and a link that directed potential
participants to the informed consent and survey instrument.
Once entered into the Qualtrics
®
system, participants were first prompted by the informed
consent form and were required to provide consent to be surveyed prior to beginning the
questionnaire. Participation in the study was voluntary and those participating in the study were
provided the option to cease participation at any time without consequences. The survey was
open for 42 days and was closed to additional responses on November 9, 2021.
50
Instrumentation
The instruments to construct the survey for this project derived from key literature with a
focus on two specific points: minimization of response bias and psychometric rigor. The former
is addressed by placement of measures within the survey. For example, incivility scales proceed
scales intended to measure the effects of incivility. The purpose of this placement is so that
respondents’ uncivil experiences do not bias their descriptions of the other variables. With
regards to content, the questionnaire utilizes six (6) established instruments drawn from the
academic literature and six (6) demographical questions. Latent variables were mean scored in
all analyses.
Workplace Incivility
Workplace incivility, both directly experienced and indirectly witnessed, was measured
by utilizing Cortina, et al.’s (2001) 7-item Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS). The original WIS
assesses incivility by superiors and coworkers over the past five (5) years. For the purposes of
this research project, the WIS was tailored toward measuring incivility by the respondents’ city
councilmembers over the past five (5) years while employed at their current organization.
Respondents were prompted with the question, “Have any of the city councilmembers in your
city acted in an uncivil manner toward you?” This was then immediately followed by a
definition of ‘uncivil” as defined by Cortina, et. al. (2001) in their original WIS. Respondents
who responded ‘yes’ that they have direct experience with city councilmember incivility were
sent to seven (7) questions that measured such incivility on a five (5) point frequency scale
measuring from ‘most of the time’ to ‘never’. Those respondents that answered ‘no’ to the
question of experiencing direct incivility were sent to a similar seven (7) questions that measured
51
witnessed city councilmember incivility over the past five (5) years at their organization. Both
directly experienced and witnessed latent variables have mean score ranges of 1-5.
Organizational Affective Commitment
Meyer et al.’s (1993) original six (6) item scale was used in the survey instrument to
measure organizational affective commitment. These questions measured how happy the
respondent would be spending the rest of their career with their organization, feeling a part of a
family at their organization, feeling a sense of belonging, their organization having a great deal
of personal meaning to the respondent, among others. All six (6) questions were measured on a
seven (7) point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Three (3) of
the questions were reverse coded, such as ‘I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my
organization’, etc. The six (6) item latent variable has a mean score range of 1-7.
Trust with City Council
The Cook & Wall (1980) scale was utilized in this study, as it is one of the most widely
used measures of interpersonal trust and indicates good psychometric properties (Khosravi et al.,
2020). The scale is a 6-item interpersonal trust at work scale that measures the confidence in the
actions of management. The questions, however, were altered to reflect trust in the respondents’
city councilmembers, as opposed to their views of management. For example, an original Cook
& Wall (1980) question of “Management at my firm is sincere in its attempts to meet the
workers’ point of view” was altered to read “City Councilmembers in my city are sincere in their
attempts to consider the employees’ point of view.” Another example would be changes to the
original reverse coded question of “Our firm has a poor future unless it can attract better
managers” to “My organization has a poor future unless better people are elected to the City
52
Council.” The six (6) item latent variable was measured on a seven (7) point Likert scale
ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ and had a mean score range of 1-7.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was measured utilizing Spector et al.’s
(2010) original ten (10) item scale. The items measure positive employee behaviors such as
organizational obedience, loyalty, participation and going above and beyond prescribed job
duties to assist with achieving organizational goals (Organ, 1998; Graham, 1991). OCB
questions ask respondents how often they have done certain actions at their present job, such as
‘took time to advise, coach, or mentor a co-worker’, ‘helped new employees get oriented to the
job’, ‘volunteered for extra work assignments’, ‘worked weekends and other days off’, among
others. The questions were measured on a five (5) point frequency scale ranging from ‘never’ to
‘every day’. The ten (10) item latent variable has mean score range of 1-5.
Public Service Motivation
The initial scales for public service motivation (PSM) were first developed by Perry
(1996), who was one of the first to advance the study of why individuals enter public service. In
measuring PSM, Kim et al. (2013) has expanded upon these initial scales into a 16-point
measurement instrument that is well-established and validated across 12 different countries.
Kim et al. (2013) distinguishes four (4) dimensions of PSM, which include compassion, self-
sacrifice, attraction to public service, and commitment to public values. This study includes Kim
et al.’s (2013) Public Service Motivation scale by focusing on self-sacrifice and commitment to
public values, which comprises an eight (8) item scale. Example questions include ‘I am
prepared to make sacrifices for the good of society’, ‘I am willing to risk personal loss to help
society’, and ‘To act ethically is essential for public servants.’ The eight (8) item latent variable
53
was measured on a five (5) point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly
agree’ and has a mean score range of 1-5.
Reliability of Scales
This project utilized Conbach’s Alpha (α) to measure internal consistency of the
independent and dependent latent variables. The goal of such analysis is to determine scale
reliability. The literature demonstrates that the typical level of adequacy is .70 (Lance et al.,
2006; Nunnally, 1978), and all the variables met such threshold, as demonstrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Reported α for all Independent and Dependent Variables
Reported α
Experienced Incivility (EI) .87
Witnessed Incivility (WI) .89
Organizational Affective Commitment (OAC) .81
Trust with City Council (TwCC) .86
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) .82
Public Service Motivation (PSM) .81

Sample
Survey Response Rate
The target population for this investigation was local government employees throughout
the State of California. The design of this project included partnerships with multiple partnering
organizations throughout the State that comprised of municipal employees. These organizations
then distributed the project’s electronic survey to their membership base. Ultimately, these
efforts translated into 549 surveys that were started. Of these, 32 (5.8%) of the responses were
not finished. These incomplete surveys were listwise deleted. The final number of respondents
for this investigation was N = 517.
54
Demographics
Six (6) demographical questions were assembled in the survey instrument. Scholars
suggests that some of these variables differ with certain demographics, such as gender, ethnicity,
position within the organization, and level of education (Schipzand et al., 2016; Cortina et al.,
2013; Sliter et al., 2012; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012; Cameron & Webster, 2011; Lim & Lee,
2011; Trudel & Reio, 2011; Spence Laschinger et al., 2009; Porath et al., 2008; Martin & Hine,
2005; Cortina et al., 2001). As such, this instrument included demographical questions on region
of where city of employment is located, population size of city where employed, job
title/hierarchy, gender, race/ethnicity, and level of education.
Two (2) of the six (6) questions asked about the municipality of employment. One (1) of
these questions is regarding the location of the municipality where the respondent is employed.
A direct question about the particular city in which the respondent was employed seemed to
diminish the confidentiality of the respondent. For example, if the respondent were to identify a
specific city and detail that they were also a city manager, it would be relatively easy to pinpoint
the specific individual and couple it with their survey response. However, general location
seemed pertinent, so respondents were asked to identify which county their municipality was
located. This meant the survey detailed all 58 counties in the State of California. County
responses were then grouped into Northern, Central and Southern California through the
following:
Northern California: Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El
Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Into, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Napa, Nevada, Placer,
Plumas, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou,
Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, Yuba; Central California: Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa,
55
Merced, Monterey, San Benito, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne; Southern California: Imperial, Kern, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Louis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura
In searching through the literature and nonacademic sources, there does not appear to be
an established standard on the borders that define Northern, Central, and Southern California.
This project clusters the various counties in these three (3) categories through best efforts. As
such, Table 2 summarizes survey responses that show over half of the respondents were located
in cities throughout Southern California, then followed by Northern California.
Table 2: Demographics - Region of Employment
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Northern California 192 37.1 37.7 37.7
Central California 28 5.4 5.5 43.2
Southern California 289 55.9 56.8 100.0
Total 509 98.5 100.0

Missing 8 1.5

Total 517 100.0

The second question relating to the respondents’ municipality of employment deals with
the population of the municipality where the respondent is employed. Table 3 summarizes the
breakdown of the cities’ population where respondents are employed.

56
Table 3: Demographics - Population of City

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Under 24,999 81 15.7 15.9 15.9
25,000 - 74,999 161 31.1 31.6 47.5
75,000 - 149,000 101 19.5 19.8 67.3
150,000 - 249,999 82 15.9 16.1 83.3
250,000 - 499,999 44 8.5 8.6 92.0
500,000+ 41 7.9 8.0 100.0
Total 510 98.6 100.0

Missing 7 1.4

Total 517 100.0

One (1) of the demographic questions asked respondents to select a job title that best
describes their position within their municipality. The project researcher could not locate such a
breakdown of job listings in either the academic literature or in past practitioner readings. As
such, the researcher made a best effort to develop a list to encompass as many general positions
in municipal government. Efforts were also made to have practitioners review the list and
provide feedback on accuracy. Once the list was finalized, survey participants could select one
(1) of twenty-eight (28) job titles or they could select an option that detailed that no position
closely resembles that of the respondent. The job titles were then grouped into three (3) different
categories. The project researcher reviewed a number of cities’ bargaining agreements that
detailed job descriptions and received feedback from practitioners to identify the different
groupings. These include executive management, middle-management, and front-line workers.
Examples of executive management include Chief (Police/Fire), City Manager, City Clerk,
57
Director, etc. Examples of middle-management include Analyst, Manager, Planner, Public
Information Officer, etc., and Front Line included Coordinator, Executive Assistant, Inspector,
Technician, etc.
Table 4 shows that the most responses derived from middle management employees,
closely followed by executive management, then front-line workers. The researcher feels that
the creation of the job titles was effective given that only a small percentage of survey
respondents selected that there is no closely listed position.
Table 4: Demographics - Job Position & Hierarchy

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Executive Management 205 39.7 40.2 40.2
Middle Management 225 43.5 44.1 84.3
Front Line 71 13.7 13.9 98.2
No Listed Position Closely
Resembles Mine
9 1.7 1.8 100.0
Total 510 98.6 100.0

Missing 7 1.4

Total 517 100.0

Three (3) of the six (6) questions dealt with the demographics of the respondent, which
included gender, race, and level of education. Respondents were asked to identify their gender,
and results indicated 310 male (60%), 203 female (39.3%), 1 as non-binary (<1%) and 3
preferred not to answer (<1%). Given their small response rate, responses from non-binary and
those preferring not to answer about their gender were included in analyses except when gender
was one of the variables.
58
Regarding race and ethnicity, respondents were asked to self-identify through seven
categories. Results (Table 5) indicate that the majority of respondents were White or Caucasian,
followed by Hispanic, Asian, and then African American or Black. Given their small response
rate, Native Americans, Multi-Racial, and Other were included in analyses except when race and
ethnicity were one of the variables.
Table 5: Demographics – Race & Ethnicity

Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid White or Caucasian 322 62.3 62.5 62.5
African American or Black 25 4.8 4.9 67.4
Hispanic 104 20.1 20.2 87.6
Asian 41 7.9 8.0 95.5
Native American 5 1.0 1.0 96.5
Multi-Racial 9 1.7 1.7 98.3
Other 9 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 515 99.6 100.0

Missing 2 .4

Total 517 100.0

Respondents were asked about their level of education. Participants could select from
options ranging from less than high school to post-graduate, which would be considered beyond
a 4-year college degree. Table 6 indicates that over half of the respondents had post-graduate
education, then followed by a 4-year college degree.
59
Table 6: Demographics - Level of Education

Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Less than High School 1 .2 .2 .2
High School / GED 15 2.9 2.9 3.1
Some College 45 8.7 8.7 11.8
2 Year College Degree 24 4.6 4.6 16.4
4 Year College Degree 153 29.6 29.6 46.0
Post-Graduate 279 54.0 54.0 100.0
Total 517 100.0 100.0

Given the higher response rates for those with 4-year and post-graduate degrees
compared to those with less than high school, high school/GED, some college and a 2-year
degree, the level of education variable was condensed into three (3) categories in all analyses.
These groups included those with less than a 4-year degree (N = 85), those with a 4-year degree
(N = 153) and those with post-graduate degrees (N = 279).
Data Analysis
Organizing Raw Data and Preparation for Analysis
Responses to the survey questionnaire were captured by Qualtrics
®
. Once survey access
closed on November 9, 2021 the researcher uploaded the raw data into International Business
Machines Corporation’s (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
®
(SPSS), which
provides for advanced statistical analysis. Statistical techniques for the data analysis were
conducted utilizing the SPSS
®
software.
60
Statistical Analysis
Once data was collected, the purpose of the survey research was to empirically evaluate
whether the measured incivility is correlated with levels of organizational affective commitment,
trust with city council, organizational citizenship behavior, and public service motivation. A
number of methodological approaches were integrated into the quantitative analysis. These
include Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients, Analysis of Variance, and multiple regression
analyses.
Standardized coefficients were reported in analyses. Certain demographics were
statistically controlled since research suggests these variables differ with certain demographics
(Schipzand et al., 2016; Cortina et al., 2013; Sliter et al., 2012; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012;
Cameron & Webster, 2011; Lim & Lee, 2011; Trudel & Reio, 2011; Spence Laschinger et al.,
2009; Porath et al., 2008; Martin & Hine, 2005; Cortina et al., 2001).
Internal and External Validity
There were numerous strengths and weaknesses with this research project. Regarding
internal validity, strengths included anonymity of the participants, blinding of participants, and
the limiting of experimenter bias. Ensuring respondents were clearly aware of their anonymity
in this study served to allow participants to provide honest and accurate responses to the
questions in the questionnaire. Certain questions, though, in this study could have inadvertently
created psychological stress as the study asked respondents to recall a time they have either
experienced or witnessed city council incivility. Anonymity served to allow participants to
respond to questions without fear of repercussions due to being identified.
Internal validity was strengthened in this research design by blinding the participants to
the true nature of the study. For example, the study was advertised to respondents as a general
61
research project that examines workplace attitudes and experiences of local government workers,
and the placement of incivility scales proceeded scales intended to measure the effects of
incivility. The purpose of such placements was to blind the participants on the purpose of the
study as to not bias the measured variables with their uncivil experiences.
Weaknesses of this research design include the lack of randomization and random
selection of the overall population. The study design defaulted on locating respondents who
were members of the partnering organizations. As such, it is possible that participants in this
study do not accurately reflect the overall population. External validity for this research project
might have been compromised as the study’s sample focused on seeking respondents from
partnering organizations, as opposed to those who may not have membership with the various
organizations. This could limit the generalizability of the research findings.
Protection of Human Subjects
Precautions were taken to safeguard respondents during this research project. The
researcher utilized Qualtrics
®
to house the survey and the study’s informed consent. The system
provided a singular and general hyperlink for the questionnaire. The link and the Qualtrics
system were set to not collect URL information or any data/information that could be used to
identify participants. Once inside the system, respondents first saw the consent form detailing
the study’s purpose, the level of participant involvement, payment/compensation for
participation, risks and discomforts, confidentially clause, voluntary participation, and researcher
contact information. Only after reviewing the consent form and agreeing to participate in the
study were respondents allowed to participate in the questionnaire. Once data was collected,
reported findings were consolidated to protect the confidentially of individual responses.
62
Storage and Protection of Data
Precautions were taken to safeguard the data obtained from the survey. The researcher
utilized Qualtrics
®
to house the survey and study’s informed consent. Questionnaire data
collected in Qualtrics
®
was only visible and accessible to the researcher. Once the surveying was
completed, the researcher stored the raw questionnaire data on an encrypted flash drive and then
transferred to SPSS
®
. These programs were located on the researcher’s password protected
personal computer. Upon completion of this study, all data and materials were saved on an
encrypted and password protected flash drive and stored in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s
personal office.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the study’s methodological approach and detailed descriptive
statistics on the study’s variables, including demographical variables. The next chapter will
report on the results of the statistical analysis for this research project.

63
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
This study utilized the International Business Machines Corporation’s (IBM) Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences
®
(SPSS) to conduct the statistical techniques for the data
analysis summarized in this chapter. As part of the analysis, the incidence rates for both directly
experienced and observed incivility were examined to understand the rate of occurrence. The
variable means were analyzed through an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to understand if there
are significant the differences among the sample subgroups on the independent and dependent
variables. A series of regression analyses then examined the correlational effects of incivility on
the variables identified in this study. Demographics were statistically controlled since research
suggests some of these variables differ with certain demographics (Schipzand et al., 2016;
Cortina et al., 2013; Sliter et al., 2012; Cameron & Webster, 2011; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012;
Lim & Lee, 2011; Trudel & Reio, 2011; Spence Laschinger et al., 2009; Porath et al., 2008;
Martin & Hine, 2005; Cortina et al., 2001). Study demographical variables were the region of
California where employment is located, population size of city where employed, job position,
gender, race/ethnicity, and level of education.
Preliminary Analysis
Descriptive Statistics of Independent and Dependent Variables
This study incorporates numerous questionnaire measures, some of which were reversed
scored so that higher scores indicated more positive responses. The experienced incivility (EI)
and witnessed incivility (WI) components were scored so that the more experience a respondent
has with city councilmember incivility the higher the variable value. As such, scores range from
5 for highest frequency of reported incivility and 1 for lowest rates of reported incivility. The
other measures of organizational affective commitment (OAC), trust with city councilmembers
64
(TwCC), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and public service motivation (PSM) have
values that increase as the positive attitudes and behaviors increase.
Mean, median, and standard deviations for all independent and dependent variables are
reported in Table 7. Survey response is N = 517; however, EI and WI have both Valid and
Missing cases, but still N = 517 when combined. This is because a respondent on the survey first
indicated if they experienced direct city council incivility at their organization. If the respondent
answered “yes”, the respondent was sent to a series of questions regarding their directly
experienced incivility. If the respondent answered “no” they did not directly experience
incivility, then they were sent to a series of questions that measured their level of indirectly
witnessed incivility. A respondent could not answer the series of questions from both the
experienced and witnessed incivility – it was either one or the other.
Table 7: All Independent & Dependent Variables’ N, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviations

EI WI OAC TwCC OCB PSM
N Valid 189 328 517 517 517 517
Missing 328 189 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.80 1.87 4.80 4.75 3.50 4.01
Median 2.57 1.57 4.83 4.67 3.50 4.13
Std. Deviation .893 .749 1.251 1.292 .642 .606

Box Plots and Outliers
Boxplots are one of the best ways to provide a standardized display of the distribution of
data based on median, maximums, minimums and quartiles (Field, 2018). Boxplots can also
display outliers and their value, and provide a better understanding of data grouping and
skewness. Data from the boxplots are represented in Table 8, demonstrating the interquartile
65
range (IQR), which is the measurement of statistical dispersion. The middle line of the boxes is
the median, which is the 50 percentile, and the top and bottom of the box functions as the 25
th

and 75
th
percentiles. Sticking out of the top and bottom of the boxs are two (2) whiskers. These
demonstrate the approximate top and bottom 25% of the scores. Outliers are those points falling
outside the whiskers of the boxplot and are identified by their respective case numbers.
Boxplot data demonstrate that the median incident rate for EI is higher than WI. The
quartiles for both independent variables suggest a skew toward lower incident rates. The
dependent variables of OAC, TwCC, OCB, and PSM show skew toward the higher, positive
aspects of the latent variables.
Outliers were inspected prior to conducting statistical analyses. Figure 1 demonstrates
that no outliers were present for the experienced incivility (EI); yet, one (1) possible outlier was
identified within witnessed incivility (WI). Figure 2 demonstrates that several possible outliers
were present for the variables of OAC, TwCC, OCB, and PSM. Both SPSS
®
and the researcher
reviewed these cases for data entry and/or instrument errors and no errors were found. Since
regression can be sensitive to outliers (Anderson & Bro, 2010; Walfish, 2006; Stevens, 1984),
results from an analysis including the outliers were compared to those when they were omitted,
and no significant differences were found to occur. As such, the outliers were retained.
Table 8: Data from Boxplots
EI WI OAC TwCC OCB PSM
Percentiles 25 2.14 1.29 4.00 4.00 3.10 3.75
50 2.57 1.57 4.83 4.67 3.50 4.13
75 3.36 2.43 5.83 5.83 4.00 4.50

66
Figure 1: Experienced and Witnessed Incivility Boxplots

Response ranges = 1-5. Higher scores indicate higher frequency of reported incivility.

Figure 2: Boxplot of Dependent Variables

Response ranges = OAC: 1-7; TwCC: 1-7; OCB: 1-5; PSM: 1-5. Higher scores indicate greater
frequency of reported workplace responses.

67
Incivility Incidence Rates
Analyses revealed that ninety-one percent (91%, N = 468) of respondents had endured
some form of incivility from their city councilmembers while at their municipality within the last
five (5) years. Thirty-seven percent (37%, N = 189) reported that they had directly experienced
incivility from their city councilmembers. Of those who reported dealing directly with incivility,
twenty-two percent (22%, N = 42) reported that they “often” or “most of the time” experienced
uncivil behavior, thirty-three percent (33%, N = 62) experienced incivility “sometimes”, and
forty percent (40%, N = 76) endured the behavior “rarely”. Five percent (5%, N = 9) responded
to the prompt that they experienced a form of city councilmember incivility in the last five (5)
years, but answered that they “never” experienced the five (5) specific forms of incivility
outlined in the survey.
Meanwhile, fifty-four percent (54%, N = 279) reported having witnessed an uncivil
incident between a city councilmember and another employee. Of those who witnessed
incivility, five percent (5%, N = 13) reported on average of witnessing the incivility “often” or
“most of the time”, eighteen percent (18%, N = 51) witnessed incivility “sometimes”, and
seventy-seven percent (77%, N = 215) reported witnessing the behavior “rarely”.
Nine percent (9%, N = 49) reported that they neither had directly experienced or
indirectly witnessed an uncivil incident with a city councilmember at their place of employment
within the past 5 years. These responses were retained in analyses under witnessed incivility,
since they established a zero baseline as part of respondents’ responses under the witnessed
incivility variable.
68
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients
The correlational relationship between study variables was examined in this project.
Salcedo & McCormick (2020) suggest utilizing Pearson’s correlation coefficient when
determining the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. Pearson’s
correlation coefficient measures the strength of relationship between two variables, and values it
between -1 and +1, so that the larger the absolute values, the stronger the correlation (Salcedo &
McCormick, 2020). Historically, Pearson’s correlation coefficient is the first formal
measurement of correlation and is one of the most widely used measurement of relationships
(Zhou et al., 2016). Table 9 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients among the study’s
variables.
Table 9: Pearson Correlation Coefficients with Study Variables
EI WI OAC TwCC OCB PSM
OAC -.277
**
-.250
**
1
TwCC -.182
*
-.516
**
.522
**
1
OCB .270
**
-.034 .189
**
.092
*
1
PSM -.037 -.197
**
.323
**
.232
**
.405
**
1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Results indicate that both EI and WI negatively correlate with OAC and TwCC. Findings
complement Kabat-Farr, Cortina & Marchiondo’s (2018) and Miner-Rubio & Reed’s (2010) past
research which concluded that workplace incivility is a negative predictor of OAC and trust in
the workplace.
Findings suggest a significant, positive relationship between EI and OCB. The
significant, positive relationship between EI and OCB is different than Liu, Zhou & Che’s (2018)
findings that suggest workplace incivility negatively predicts OCB. The positive relationship
69
may be explained by the idea that OCB could be linked with workplace stresses. Bolino & Klotz
(2015) argue that there are situations where employees engage in OCB because of workplace
pressures to go ‘beyond the call of duty at work’ or employees engage in OCB to unethically
create favorable impressions to management. The theory suggests that workplace stressors
pressure employees to continually do more to be a ‘good organizational citizen’ or to engage in
OCB as a way to undercut other employees thereby seeking management praises and promotions
(Bolino & Klotz, 2015). The relationship between WI and OCB was not found to be statistically
significant.
Results indicate that WI is negatively correlated with PSM, although the correlation with
EI was not statistically significant. Findings compliment Bakker’s (2015) argument that
workplace incivility can predict PSM; except in this study, WI was correlated with PSM and not
EI as in Bakker’s study.
ANOVAs and T-Tests
Study demographics for this project were the region of where city of employment is
located, population size of city where employed, job and hierarchal position within the
municipality, gender, race/ethnicity, and level of education. To determine if these demographic
features are related to the test variables, a series of Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were used to
assess subsample differences in OAC, TwCC, OCB, PSM, EI and WI. An Independent-Samples
T Test (t-test) was conducted for gender since this test is used when comparing only two means
(Field, 2018, p. 445), which in this case is male and female. The ANOVAs and t-tests revealed
significant differences between demographic subgroups on all variables (Table 10). When an
ANOVA indicates that there is a significant difference between groups, it means that at least one
group differs from at least one other group; however, it does not detail the pattern of differences
70
between group means (Abdi & Williams, 2010). As such, post hoc comparisons, using the
Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test, were performed on all significant effects
from the ANOVA analyses (Table 11).
Region of Employment
ANOVAs revealed significant effects of region of employment on OAC (F{2, 506} =
3.342, p = .036), PSM (F{2, 506} = 9.257, p < .001), and EI (F{2, 183} = 4.626, p = .011). Post
hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for OAC in Southern
California was significantly higher than in Northern California. A higher mean score on PSM
was reported in Southern California than in both Northern and Central California. A
significantly higher EI mean score was reported in Central California than in Southern
California.
Population of City
ANOVAs revealed significant effects for city population of employment on OCB (F{5,
504} = 3.448, p = .004) and EI (F{5, 182} = 5.962, p < .001). Post hoc comparisons indicated
that cities with a population greater than 500,000+ report significantly higher OCB than small
cities less than 24,999; 25,000-74,999; and 75,000-149,999. Meanwhile, mean scores for EI
indicated that the level of incivility differed significantly between the largest cities and all other
city sizes.

71
Table 10: Means (M) of Survey Variables with # of Participants (N) and Standard Deviations ( SD)

Table 10: Means (M) of Survey Variables with # of Participants (N) and Standard Deviations (SD)

OAC TwCC OCB PSM EI WI
Response Range 1-7 1-7 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5
Variable N M SD M SD M SD M SD M N SD M N SD

Region *** *** ***
Northern California 192 4.64 1.14 4.85 1.11 3.49 .66 3.90 .71 2.93 79 .84 1.87 113 .71
Central California 28 4.72 1.06 4.44 1.53 3.61 .70 3.83 .67 3.27 14 .97 2.07 14 .84
Southern California 289 4.94 1.34 4.72 1.37 3.60 .62 4.12 .60 2.63 93 .89 1.84 196 .76

Population of City *** ***
< 24,999 81 4.93 1.38 4.71 1.46 3.48 .62 4.02 .55 2.59 32 .65 1.89 49 .76
25,000 - 74,999 161 4.76 1.21 4.85 1.23 3.50 .62 4.03 .61 2.46 46 .76 1.80 115 .75
75,000 - 149,000 101 4.90 1.25 4.76 1.26 3.51 .68 4.11 .60 2.64 41 .82 1.81 60 .69
150,000 - 249,999 82 4.85 1.28 4.60 1.35 3.56 .57 3.89 .59 3.01 28 .87 1.77 54 .69
250,000 - 499,999 44 5.03 1.23 4.97 1.37 3.71 .60 3.93 .67 2.86 17 .73 2.26 27 .72
500,000+ 41 4.30 1.06 4.54 1.11 3.89 .70 4.13 .65 3.73 24 1.06 2.01 17 .92

Job Position *** *** *** ***
Executive Management 205 5.17 1.26 5.08 1.29 3.74 .57 4.11 .56 2.74 91 .88 1.82 114 .64
Middle Management 225 4.54 1.24 4.55 1.29 3.44 .59 3.97 .60 2.82 70 .93 1.87 155 .77
Front Line 71 4.64 1.06 4.40 1.16 3.46 .80 3.86 .75 2.94 25 .84 2.02 46 .85

Gender ++ ++
Male 310 4.84 1.24 4.85 1.29 3.61 .64 3.97 .66 2.96 125 .91 1.87 185 .77
Female 203 4.79 1.24 4.61 1.27 3.44 .63 4.08 .52 2.49 62 .74 1.87 141 .73

Race/Ethnicity *** ***
White/Caucasian 322 4.78 1.23 4.80 1.25 3.55 .63 3.99 .65 2.71 120 .81 1.93 202 .76
African American/Black 25 4.59 1.28 4.87 1.21 3.36 .75 3.87 .57 2.79 10 .74 1.52 15 .59
Hispanic 104 4.99 1.34 4.68 1.45 3.63 .57 4.07 .52 2.97 29 1.00 1.79 75 .71
Asian 41 4.60 1.26 4.54 1.25 3.54 .80 4.25 .42 3.33 19 1.15 2.00 22 .94

Level of Education *** *** *** ***
Less than 4-Year Degree 85 4.46 1.00 4.47 .91 3.51 .84 3.85 .70 3.31 45 .99 1.62 40 .60
4-Year Degree 153 4.73 1.14 4.89 1.24 3.49 .60 2.80 .70 2.68 37 .70 1.98 116 .83
Post-Graduate Degree 279 4.94 1.40 4.75 1.41 3.59 .60 4.19 .49 2.63 107 .83 1.85 172 .71
*** Indicates One Way ANOVA Significance at p < .05 Between Groups and Within Groups
++ Indicates t-test Significance at p < .05
72

Table 11: Tukey HSD: Multiple Comparisons - Statistically Significant Variables

Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95 % Confidence
Interval
Variables
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Region (I) (J)
OAC Southern California : Northern California
.297 .116 .029 .02 .57
PSM Southern California : Northern California
.217 .055 <.001 .09 .35
: Central California
.285 .117 .041 .01 .56
EI Central California : Southern California
.639 .252 .032 .04 1.23

Population of City

OCB 500,000+ : < 24,999
.405 120 .011 .06 .75
: 25,000 - 74,999
.392 .110 .005 .08 .71
: 75,000 - 149,999
.373 .116 .018 .04 .71
EI 500,000+ : < 24,999
1.138 .219 <.001 .51 1.77
: 25,000 - 74,999
1.273 .204 <.001 .68 1.86
: 75,000 - 149,999
1.091 .209 <.001 .49 1.69
: 150,000 - 249,999
.727 .226 .019 .08 1.38
: 250,000 - 499,999
.875 .257 .011 .13 1.62

Job Position

OAC Executive Mngt : Middle Mngt
.624 .118 <.001 .35 .90
: Front Line
.528 .169 .005 .13 .92
TwCC Executive Mngt : Middle Mngt
.534 .123 <.001 .25 .82
: Front Line
.688 .175 <.001 .28 1.10
OCB Executive Mngt : Middle Mngt .299 .059 <.001 .16 .44
: Front Line .268 .084 .003 .08 .48
PSM Executive Mngt : Middle Mngt .146 .059 .035 .01 .28
: Front Line .257 .083 .006 .06 .45

Race/Ethnicity
PSM Asian : White/Caucasian .262 .101 .046 .00 .52
EI Asian : White/Caucasian .621 .217 .025 .06 1.19

Level of Education
OAC Post-Graduate : < 4-Year Degree .470 .154 .005 .12 .84
PSM Post-Graduate : < 4-Year Degree .338 .072 <.001 .17 .51
: 4-Year Degree .389 .058 <.001 .25 .53
EI < 4-Year Degree : 4-Year Degree .639 .189 .002 .19 1.08
: Post-Graduate .683 .151 <.001 .33 1.04
WI 4-Year Degree : < 4-Year Degree .354 .136 .027 .03 .67

73
Job Position
ANOVAs revealed significant effects of respondents’ job position within the
organization’s hierarchy on OAC (F{2, 489} = 14.776, p < .001), TwCC (F{2, 498} = 12.643, p
< .001) , OCB (F{2, 498} = 13.919, p < .001), and PSM (F{2, 489} = 5.817, p = .003). Post hoc
comparisons indicated that there were significant differences between executive management
and both middle management and front-line workers on all of these variables, with those in
executive management having higher scores than the other two groups. This does not seem
surprising since those who are committed to public service, to their organization, and perform
extra tasks above and beyond what is required are more likely to be judged as effective and
likely candidates for promotions to higher level positions (Koo et al., 2020; Mercurio, 2015; Van
Scotter, 2000). Moreover, those in executive positions were found to have higher levels of trust
with their city council members.
Gender
T-tests revealed significant effects of gender on PSM (t{494.024} = 9.461, p = .015) and
EI (t{147.370} = 8.772, p < .001). Independent-samples t-tests found that there was a significant
difference in scores on PSM between males and females. These results indicated that females
have higher levels of PSM compared to their male counterparts. Findings also indicate a
significant difference in scores on EI between males and females, with males reporting higher
levels of EI compared to their female counterparts.
Race/Ethnicity
ANOVAs revealed significant effects of race/ethnicity on PSM (F{3, 488} = 3.008, p =
.03) and EI (F{3, 174} = 3.028, p = .031). Post hoc comparisons indicate that the mean scores
for White/Caucasian and Asian respondents differed significantly, indicating that Asians have
74
higher reported levels of PSM than their White/Caucasian counterparts. One possible
explanation is by Gao (2015) who argues that East Asian cultures are found to be influenced by
Confucianism. The ideals associated with Confucianism mirror many of the same ideals as
PSM, such as altruistic and humanistic sensibility and caring about and respecting others (Gao,
2015). EI was also found to be significantly different between respondents of White/Caucasian
and Asian backgrounds, with Asians reporting higher levels of EI than their White/Caucasian
counterparts.
Level of Education
ANOVAs revealed significant effects of level of education on OAC (F{2, 514} = 5.208,
p = .006), PSM (F{2, 514} = 26.610, p < .001), EI (F{2, 186} = 7.755, p < .001), and WI (F{2,
325} = 3.456, p = .033. Post hoc comparisons indicate that the mean score on OAC and PSM
differed significantly between those with post-graduate degrees and those with less than a 4-year
degree. Those with Post graduate-degrees reported higher levels of OAC and PSM than their
counterparts with less than a 4-year degree. Results on PSM are consistent with the literature
(Pandey & Stazyk, 2008). Bright (1997) argues that the increase in PSM is because of the
‘professionalizing’ effect of education, and Boyte & Kari (1999) suggest that educational
institutions play an important role in teaching ‘practical citizenship.’
Post hoc comparisons indicate that those with less than a 4-year degree have higher
reported EI than their counterparts with 4-year and post graduate degrees. Additionally, those
with a 4-year degree reported high levels of WI than their counterparts with less than a 4-year
degree.
75
Regression Analysis
A series of multiple linear regression analyses were used to establish the relationship
between the sets of variables in this study. Regression analysis was chosen because regression
allows a researcher to quantify relationships so that future predictions can be made between
variables (McCormick & Salcedo, 2020). This section conducts multiple regression analyses to
statistically examine the relationships between each of the four (4) dependent variables and
several independent and control variables. Demographic variables in the regression analyses
were dummy coded to control for the categorial variables. If categorial variables with more than
two levels are used as predictive variables, they must be converted into dichotomous ones
through a process known as ‘dummy coding’ (McCormick & Salcedo, 2020; Plonsky &
Ghanbar, 2018). For example, job position, as a categorial variable, might be coded on three
different levels: 1 = executive management, 2 = middle management, and 3 = front-line workers.
If categorial variables are to enter multiple regression, it must be transformed into new
dichotomous variables, which are called dummy variables (Plonsky & Ghanbar, 2018). As such,
isolating executive management compared to all others is then coded: executive management =
1, vs. middle management and front-line workers = 0. Testing in this manner allows for a
singular regression equation that controls for differences among multiple sample subgroups.
A series of multiple linear regression analyses were used to statistically examine the
relationships between the independent and dependent variables in this study. Eight regressions
were run, each examining the correlated effect of experienced or witnessed incivility with one of
the four dependent variables. Each regression also included one or more control variables, which
were coded as a dichotomous dummy variable that reflected the subgroup differences found in
the ANOVAs reported above. In particular, respondents holding executive management
76
positions scored higher on all four dependent variables than those in middle management and
frontline positions, so executives were coded 1 and others were coded as 0. When there were
differences between regions of employment, scores for those in Southern California were
different from those in one or both of the other two regions, so they were coded as 1 and the
other were coded as 0. When there were differences associated with city size, it was the largest
cities that differed from others, so those respondents were coded as 1 and others as 0. For the
remaining three control variables, females were coded as 1 and males 0, Asians were coded as 1
and others 0, and those with post-graduate education were coded as 1 and others 0. Below, the
variables included in each regression are identified and the regression results are summarized.
Organizational Affective Commitment
The regression of OAC on experienced incivility included three control variables that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: region, job position, and level of
education. Overall, this regression model was significant (F{4, 180} = 9.704, p <.001), with the
R
2
indicating that these predictors explain approximately 18% of the variation in OAC. Results
for the specific variables are displayed in Table 12. These results indicate that EI is negatively
correlated with OAC. Those in executive management have significantly higher levels of
reported OAC compared to others in middle management and front-line positions. Being from
Southern California and having a post-graduate degree did not have a significant effect on OAC.

77
Table 12: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Organizational Affective Commitment,
Region of Employment, Job Position, and Level of Education
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 4.776 .330

14.481 <.001
EI -.313 .095 -.231 -3.316 .001
Southern California .137 .175 .057 .783 .434
Executive Management .713 .167 .296 4.274 <.001
Post-Graduate .138 .181 .057 .761 .448
a. Dependent Variable: OAC

The regression of OAC on witnessed incivility also included three control variables that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: region, job position, and level of
education. Overall, this regression model was significant (F{4, 309} = 11.413, p <.001), with
the R
2
indicating that these predictors explain approximately 13% of the variation in OAC.
Results for the specific variables are displayed in Table 13. These results indicate that WI is
negatively correlated with OAC. Those in executive management have significantly higher
levels of reported OAC compared to others in middle management and front-line positions.
Being from Southern California and having a post-graduate degree did not have a significant
effect on OAC.
Table 13: Regression Model – Witnessed Incivility, Organizational Affective Commitment,
Region of Employment, Job Position and Level of Education

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 5.374 .210 25.561 <.001
WI -.377 .089 -.226 -4.249 <.001
Southern California .112 .146 .045 .768 .443
Executive Management .627 .136 .246 4.601 <.001
Post-Graduate .186 .143 .076 1.300 .195
a. Dependent Variable: OAC
78
Trust with City Council
The regression of TwCC on experienced incivility included one control variable that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: job position. Overall, this regression
model was significant (F{2, 183} = 10.963, p <.001), with the R
2
indicating that these predictors
explain approximately 11% of the variation in TwCC. Results for the specific variables are
displayed in Table 14. These results indicate that EI is negatively correlated with TwCC. Those
in executive management have significantly higher levels of reported TwCC compared to others
in middle management and front-line positions.
Table 14: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Trust with City Council, and Job Position

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 4.491 .286

15.678 <.001
EI -.221 .092 -.168 -2.398 .017
Executive Management .632 .164 .270 3.861 <.001
a. Dependent Variable: TwCC

The regression of TwCC on witnessed incivility also included one control variable that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: job position. Overall, this regression
model was significant (F{2, 312) = 79.399, p <.001), with the R
2
indicating that these predictors
explain approximately 34% of the variation in TwCC. Results for the specific variables are
displayed in Table 15. These results indicate that WI is negatively correlated with TwCC.
Those in executive management have significantly higher levels of reported TwCC compared to
others in middle management and front-line positions.

79
Table 15: Regression Model – Witnessed Incivility, Trust with City Council, and Job Position

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 6.478 .166

39.095 <.001
WI -.872 .078 -.513 -11.112 <.001
Executive Management .643 .120 .246 5.340 <.001
a. Dependent Variable: TwCC

Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The regression of OCB on experienced incivility included two control variable that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: population of city and job position.
Overall, this regression model was significant (F{3, 181} = 8.353, p <.001), with the R
2

indicating that these predictors explain approximately 13% of the variation in OCB. Results for
the specific variables are displayed in Table 16. These results indicate that EI is positively
correlated with OCB. Those in executive management have significantly higher levels of
reported OCB compared to others in middle management and front-line positions. The
population of the city did not have a significant effect on OCB.
Table 16: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Organizational Citizenship Behavior,
Population of City, and Job Position

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.044 .170 17.931 <.001
EI .168 .057 .222 2.938 .004
500,000+ .283 .154 .139 1.840 .067
Executive Management .252 .094 .187 2.683 .008
a. Dependent Variable: OCB

80
The regression of OCB on witnessed incivility also included two control variable that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: population of city and job position.
Overall, this regression model was significant (F{3, 309} = 7.886, p <.001), with the R
2

indicating that these predictors explain approximately 7% of the variation in OCB. Results for
the specific variables are displayed in Table 17. These results indicate that WI is not correlated
with OCB. Those in executive management have significantly higher levels of reported OCB
compared to others in middle management and front-line positions. The population of the city
did not have a significant effect on OCB.
Table 17: Regression Model – Witnessed Incivility, Organizational Citizenship Behavior,
Population of City, and Job Position

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.413 .093

36.690 <.001
WI -.016 .044 -.020 -.366 .715
500,000+ .256 .151 .093 1.692 .092
Executive Management .312 .067 .255 4.632 <.001
a. Dependent Variable: OCB

Public Service Motivation
The regression of PSM on experienced incivility included five control variable that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: region, job position, gender,
race/ethnicity, and level of education. Overall, this regression model was significant (F{6, 165}
= 8.930, p <.001), with the R
2
indicating that these predictors explain approximately 25% of the
variation in PSM. Results for the specific variables are displayed in Table 18. These results
indicate that EI is not correlated with PSM. Those in executive management have significantly
higher levels of reported PSM compared to others in middle management and front-line
81
positions. Additionally, females have higher levels of PSM compared to males, Asians
compared to their counterparts, and having a post graduate degree compared to those with lesser
levels of education. Being from Southern California did not have a significant effect on PSM.
Table 18: Regression Model – Experienced Incivility, Public Service Motivation, Region of
Employment, Job Position, Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Level of Education
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.195 .206

15.477 <.001
EI .078 .058 .100 1.343 .181
Southern California .116 .102 .085 1.136 .257
Executive Management .259 .096 .188 2.694 .008
Gender/Female .238 .105 .162 2.270 .024
Asian .336 .160 .153 2.099 .037
Post-Graduate .480 .106 .345 4.531 <.001
a. Dependent Variable: PSM

The regression of PSM on witnessed incivility also included five control variable that
demonstrated significant differences in the ANOVAs: region, job position, gender,
race/ethnicity, and level of education. Overall, this regression model was significant (F{6, 292}
= 7.894, p <.001), with the R
2
indicating that these predictors explain approximately 14% of the
variation in PSM. Results for the specific variables are displayed in Table 19. These results
indicate that WI is negatively correlated with PSM. Those with a post graduate education have
significantly higher levels of PSM compared to those with lesser levels of education. Being from
Southern California, an executive, female, or Asian did not have a significant effect on PSM.

82
Table 19: Regression Model: Witnessed Incivility, Public Service Motivation, Region of
Employment, Job Position, Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Level of Education

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 4.068 .101

40.473 <.001
WI -.137 .041 -.183 -3.356 <.001
Southern California .068 .069 .060 .989 .324
Executive Management .107 .066 .093 1.620 .106
Gender/Female -.006 .065 -.006 -.096 .924
Asian .143 .120 .066 1.187 .236
Post-Graduate .291 .067 .261 4.333 <.001
a. Dependent Variable: PSM Mean

Conclusion
This study seeks to understand employee reactions to city council incivility and will achieve
its purpose through answering the following research question: How do municipal employees
react to the incivility of their city councilmembers? To address this question, four (4) sub-set of
research questions were identified. These subsidiary research questions are:
1) Is an employee’s organizational commitment affected by city council incivility?
2) Does city council incivility affect an employee’s level of trust with the city council?
3) Does an employee’s organization citizenship behavior react to city council incivility?
4) Is an employee’s public service motivation affected by city council incivility?
Through a distributed survey, this chapter analyzed the data associated with the survey
responses of local government employees (N = 517) to assist with answer the four (4) sub-set of
research questions. Statistical techniques in this study include Pearson’s correlation coefficients,
Analysis of Variance, and multiple linear regression. The next chapter will further discuss these
results, the implication of the results for practice, and will provide recommendations for further
research.
83
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to discern how municipal employees react to the incivility of
their city councilmembers. Specifically, employees’ experienced and witnessed city council
incivility was analyzed to understand their effects on a local government employee’s
organizational affective commitment, trust with their city councilmembers, organizational
citizenship behavior, and public service motivation. Further, this study sought to determine the
relationship among study’s variables and the demographic variables of region of where city of
employment is located, population size of city where employed, job position and hierarchy,
gender, race/ethnicity, and level of education.
This study employed a cross-sectional and convenience web-based sampling survey to
collect data. Questionnaire items assessed to what extent each respondent either experienced or
witnessed city councilmember incivility and as well as the study’s outcome and control
variables. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were examined. This Chapter will provide a
summary of study results, discuss the results in relationship to the current literature, and will
identify limitations of the study. Lastly, implications for practice will be discussed and
recommendations for future research will be proposed.
Summary of Results
This quantitative, nonexperimental study utilized a survey-based design to address the
study’s research question: How do municipal employees react to the incivility of their city
councilmembers? Scholars have found that incivility in the workplace affects both individual
and organizational performance (Cortina et al., 2017; Estes & Wang, 2008; Person & Porath,
2004, 2005; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Cortina et al., 2001), and this study sought to parallel the
literature by understanding the effects of city councilmember incivility. Based on the review of
84
literature (Cortina & Marchiondo, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Bakker, 2015; Kabat-Farr et al., 2010;
Cortina et al., 2001), this study sought to answer the primary research question through a sub-set
of research questions:
• Is an employee’s organizational commitment affected by city council incivility?
• Does city council incivility affect an employee’s level of trust with the city
council?
• Does an employee’s organizational citizenship behavior react to city council
incivility?
• Is an employee’s public service motivation affected by city council incivility?
Participants involved in this survey derived from five (5) municipal employee
professional organizations throughout the State of California. The organizations agreed to send
out the survey instrument through their listservs. While there may have been overlap with a
participant’s membership, this allowed for a broader coverage of survey. These organizations
included the 1) Municipal Management Association of Northern California and 2) Southern
California, 3) Cal-ICMA, 4) California City Management Foundation, and 5) California Women
Leading Government.
A total of 517 surveys were completed. Analysis revealed that ninety-one percent (91%,
N = 469) of respondents had endured some form of incivility from their city councilmembers
while at their municipality within the past five (5) years. Of this, thirty-seven percent (37%, N =
189) reported dealing directly with experienced incivility from their city councilmembers, and
fifty-four percent (54%, N = 279) reported witnessing an uncivil incident. Only nine-percent
(9%, N = 49) reported that they neither had direct experience or indirectly witnessed an uncivil
incident.
85
This study found that a negative relationship existed between a municipal employee’s
direct experience with city councilmember incivility and both their organizational affective
commitment (p = .001) and trust with the city council (p = .017), while there was a positive
relationship with their organizational citizenship behavior (p = .004). Results from this study
also indicated that a municipal employee’s indirect witnessing of city councilmember incivility
with another municipal employee is negatively correlated with their organizational affective
commitment (p < .001), trust with the city council (p < .001), and public service motivation (p <
.001). It should be noted that those who have witnessed city councilmember incivility had a
stronger, negative correlation with trusting city councilmembers (r = -.522) compared to those
who have directly experienced the incivility (r = -.182)
Regarding demographical findings, those in executive management consistently had
higher levels of organizational affective commitment, trust with city councilmembers, and
organizational citizenship behavior than those in middle management and front-line workers. Of
those who experienced councilmember incivility, public service motivation was higher among
those in executive management (compared to middle management and front-line workers),
females (versus males), Asians (compared to Whites/Caucasians), and those with post-graduate
degrees (compared to those with lower levels of education). Of those who witnessed city
councilmember incivility, public service motivation was higher among those who had a post-
graduate degree, compared to those with lower levels of education.
Discussion of the Results
This quantitative project was conducted to examine how city councilmember incivility
affects a local government employee’s organizational commitment, trust with city
86
councilmembers, organizational citizenship behavior, and public service motivation. This
section provides a discussion of the interpretation on the results of this study.
The project’s analyses were able only to evaluate correlational relationships between the
study’s independent and dependent variables; however, there is a theoretical argument to be
made that such phenomenon is causation and not simply correlation. For example, scholars have
highlighted the role of power with incivility and how this power has interacted with uncivil
behaviors to predict negative outcomes in the workplace (Demsky, 2019; Hershcovis et al., 2017;
Schilpzand et al., 2016; Hershcovis, 2011). These arguments suggest that those in power are the
perpetrators and those victims are of lower status (Demsky, 2019). Similarly, councilmembers
are elected to exercise their powers and responsibilities over their municipalities and employees
to bring about improved quality of life (Jordaan, 2013). As such, the hierarchical power
dynamics between a city councilmember and an employee can be seen as closely mirroring the
same dynamics between a workplace supervisor and employee, which has been studied
extensively. This theoretical argument then suggests that it is the city councilmember incivility
affecting the study variables of commitment, trust, organizational citizenship behavior and public
service motivation.
The mean response of the study’s participants showed that experiences, in some form,
with city councilmember incivility is widespread. Over a third had reported direct experience
with city councilmember incivility. Over half more had reported that even though they may not
have had direct experience with the incivility, they have at least witnessed it. In fact, only a
small fraction had reported neither directly experiencing or indirectly witnessing city
councilmember incivility. The incident rates with employees dealing with city councilmember
incivility supports the notion that this type of incivility is widespread among local governments
87
(Bennett, 2021; Shandwick et al., 2019). Additionally, findings parallel the literature which
suggest that incivility is common in the workplace (Irum et al., 2020; Demsky et al., 2019;
Schilpzand et al., 2016; Porath & Pearson, 2013; Sliter, 2010).
Both directly experiencing and indirectly witnessing city councilmember incivility was
found to negatively affect a municipal employee’s organizational commitment. These findings
are important because scholars have argued that organizational commitment is critical to an
organization, as it is a determinant of dedication and loyalty (Rhoades et al., 2001). Others
suggest that organizational commitment provides for a sense of belonging and identification,
which increases an employee’s willingness to pursue an organization’s goals and desire to
remain employed at the organization (Rhoades et al., 2001; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et
al., 1982). In contract, a lack of organizational commitment leads to absenteeism, poorer
performance, withdrawal, and turnover (Solinger et al., 2008; Rhoades et al., 2001; Meyer &
Allen, 1997; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982).
This study found that both directly experiencing and indirectly witnessing city
councilmember incivility negatively affects a municipal employee’s trust with their city
councilmembers. These findings are important because scholars have argued that trust in the
workplace has been related to positive work engagement (Chughati et al., 2015), higher
employee performance (Colquitt et al., 2007) greater retention (Laschinger et al., 2012), and
fewer counterproductive work behaviors, such as aggression, lateness, absenteeism, and feelings
of physical or emotional withdraw (Colquitt et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 1995). Additionally, those
who have dealt with uncivil workplace behavior began to distrust their supervisors and
organization, which in turn made them think more about quitting their jobs (Miner-Rubio &
Reed, 2010), and negatively impacted their work engagement and subsequent citizenship
88
performance (Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018). Barling (1996) also found that interpersonal
mistreatment led to numerous emotional consequences, such as distrust, which influenced
occupational well-being.
Directly experiencing city councilmember incivility was found to have a positive
influence on a municipal employee’s organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). At first glance,
it seems beneficial to encourage an environment that increases OCB, especially since OCB is
related to numerous individual-level outcomes, such as higher managerial ratings of employee
performance and positive reward allocations, and organizational-level outcomes, such as
increased productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, and higher levels of customer satisfaction
(Ocampo et al., 2018; Podsakoff et al., 2009). However, an explanation for the positive findings
in this study could be attributed to employees feeling workplace pressures, because of the city
council incivility, to go ‘beyond the call of duty at work’ to unethically create favorable
impressions to their city councilmembers and/or to continually do more to be a ‘good
organizational citizen’ as a way to undercut other employees to seek managements’ and/or city
councilmembers praises and promotions (Bolino & Klotz, 2015). Bolino & Klotz (2015) suggest
that such phenomena with OCB can lead to resource depletion, moral licensing, injustice and
anger, and citizenship pressure. Consequences in these areas are argued to lead employees to
feeling overloaded (Bolino & Turnley, 2005), stressed (Bolino & Turnley, 2005), emotionally
exhausted (Koopman et al., 2016), fatigued (Bolino et al., 2015), resentful and angry (Spector &
Fox, 2010; Krischer et al., 2010). This in turn can lead to work-family conflict, work-leisure
conflict, and turnover intentions (Bolino, 2010). Such attitudes and stresses can further lead to
increased incivility in the workplace (Penney & Spector, 2005).
89
There could be a reasoning why only experienced city councilmember incivility, as
opposed to also witnessed incivility, affects organizational citizenship behavior. Bolino (1999)
had suggested that these organizational citizenship behaviors, in some contexts and instances,
could be a form of ‘impression management’ to enhance an employee’s image in the workplace.
As such, those that are witnessing councilmember incivility might not feel the need to manage
their impression to the uncivil councilmembers since the councilmembers are not directly
displaying such uncivil acts toward them. Research exploring witnessed workplace incivility’s
effect on employee organizational citizenship behavior is still limited (Liu et al., 2019), but
Jamal & Siddiqui (2020) also found a link only between experienced incivility, not witnessed
incivility, and organizational citizenship behavior.
This study found a negative relationship between those that indirectly witnessed city
councilmember incivility and their public service motivation. The ideal behind public service
motivation is that public servants differ than their private sector counterparts as they are
motivated “to deliver service to people with the purpose of doing good for others and society”
(Hodeghem & Perry, 2009, p. 6). Christensen et al. (2017) found that a nurtured public service
motivation can help develop stronger ties with the organization’s values and goals. A strong
public service motivation can also offset workplace stressors (Christensen et al., 2017).
However, Bakker (2015) argues that such workplace stressors, such as incivility, could
negatively affect the positive aspect of public service motivation, such as employee engagement
and job performance. Justification on why study findings only affected witnessed incivility
could be that those respondents who are a part of the witnessed incivility category are just more
sensitive to situations of injustice as opposed to those who have experienced incivility. For
example, Potipiroon & Faerman (2016) argue that those with low public service motivation tend
90
to be more sensitive to organizational justice, such as incivility. It also could be that witnessing
incivility sparks different levels of deontic injustice. For example, Porath et al. (2010) found that
those that witnessed a manager engage in incivility towards a subordinance had reactions that
was mediated by their perceptions of deontic injustice. More research is needed to fully
understand why only those that indirectly witness city councilmember incivility, instead of also
experienced incivility, affects one’s public service motivation. Previous scholars have
complained about the overall lack of research on witnessed incivility (Han et al., 2022;
Schilpzand et al., 2016). For example, Schilpzand et al. (2016) found that only about seven
percent (7%) of workplace incivility research focused on witnessed incivility, as opposed to
experienced incivility.
Six (6) demographical questions were assembled to determine if study variables differed
with certain demographics. The literature suggest that the study’s variables differ with certain
demographics, such as gender, ethnicity, position within the organization, and level of education
(Schipzand et al., 2016; Cortina et al., 2013; Sliter et al., 2012; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012;
Cameron & Webster, 2011; Lim & Lee, 2011; Trudel & Reio, 2011; Spence Laschinger et al.,
2009; Porath et al., 2008; Martin & Hine, 2005; Cortina et al., 2001). This study found that
executive management consistently had higher levels of organizational affective commitment,
trust with city councilmembers, and organizational citizenship behavior than those in middle
management and front-line workers. Results do not seem surprising since those who are
committed to public service, to their organization and perform extra tasks above and beyond
what is required are more likely to be judged as effective and likely candidates for promotions to
higher level positions (Koo et al., 2020; Mercurio, 2015; Van Scotter, 2000). This study also
found that those with post-graduate degrees consistently had higher levels of public service
91
motivation compared to those with lower levels of education. These findings are consistent with
the literature that argue educational institutions help with ‘professionalizing’ public service and
play an important role in teaching ‘practical citizenship’ (Pandey & Stazk, 2008; Boyte & Kari,
1999; Bright, 1997). Of those who experienced city councilmember incivility, public service
motivation was higher among those in females (versus males) and Asians (compared to
Whites/Caucasians). Females and Asians possessing higher levels of public service motivation
is no surprise and is consistent with findings in the literature. Scholars argue that public service
occupations tend to be more associated with support, compassion, and caretaking with the act of
providing direct services and benefits to society, and these are roles that typically attract females
(Riccucci, 2018; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Bright, 2005). Scholars have also argued that East
Asian cultures are found to be influenced by Confucianism, and these are ideals that mirror many
of the same values as public service motivation, such as altruistic and humanistic sensibility and
caring about and respecting others (Chen et al., 2018; Gao, 2015). With both gender and race, it
is unknown why both variables were only significant with those who had experienced city
councilmember incivility and not also those that had witnessed it. This is an area that can benefit
from further investigation.
Strengths and Limitations
One strength of this project was survey construction. The instruments to construct the
survey for this project derived from key literature with a focus on two specific points:
minimization of response bias and psychometric rigor. The former was addressed by placement
of measures within the survey. For example, incivility scales proceeded scales intended to
measure the effects of incivility. The purpose of this placement was so that respondents’ uncivil
92
experiences did not bias their descriptions of the other variables. With regards to content, the
questionnaire utilized instruments drawn from the academic literature.
Internal validity was also a strength of this project, as it included anonymity of the
participants, blinding of participants, and limiting experimenter bias. Ensuring respondents were
clearly aware of their anonymity in this study served to allow participants to provide honest and
accurate responses to the questions in the questionnaire. Anonymity served to allow participants
to respond to questions without fear of repercussions due to being identified. Blinding the
participants occurred by advertising the study to respondents as a general research project that
examines workplace attitudes and experiences of local government workers, and by the
placement of incivility scales. The purpose of such placement was to blind the participants on
the purpose of the study as to not bias the measured variables with their uncivil experiences.
A weakness of this research design was the lack of randomization and random selection
from the overall population. The study design defaulted on locating respondents who were
members of partnering organizations. As such, it is possible that participants in this study do not
accurately reflect the overall population. This could limit generalizability of research findings.
Implications of the Results for Practice
The effects of workplace incivility have been well-documented over the years on a wide
variety of jobs and professions, but the focus has mainly been on employee-to-employee
incivility in the private sector (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Some have studied government
incivility (Cortina, et al., 2013; Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004; Cortina et al., 2001), and fewer
have studied municipalities (Slattery, 2019). Practitioners have hinted about the negative aspects
of city council incivility (Manuel, 2020; Gould, 2019; Benest, 2018), but few, if any, have
specifically studied how municipal employees react to their governing body’s incivility. Such a
93
topic is critically important, especially when practitioners like Earl Mathers, a city manager
writing for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), alludes to the lack
of civility as “a more insidious destructive force than civil war…” (Mathers, 2017). This study is
also one of the few that has empirically measured the direct effects of such incivility on local
government employees.
The study’s findings have significant implications for the local government sector.
Practitioners have been discussing various types of city councilmember incivility, which include
meddling in employee personnel affairs (Poturica & Urban, 2007), personal attacks (Everyday
Ethics for Local Officials, 2003), harassment (Striplin, 2022), lack of consideration and
appreciation (Benest, 2018), among others. This study sought to mirror the academic literature
on workplace incivility by defining city councilmember incivility as condescending actions,
demeaning or derogatory remarks, addressing employees unprofessionally, doubting their
judgement, ignoring employees, and/or paying little attention to employees’ remarks. Results
from this study have shown that city councilmember incivility is widespread, with a third
reporting direct experience with city councilmember incivility and over a half more witnessing it.
There seems to be a lack of practitioner discussion and academic research on incivility incident
rates, so it is difficult to determine how this study’s results are comparable. However, with a
reported ninety-one percent (91%) having some type of experience with councilmember
incivility, these rates seem astoundingly high. The implications on such high incident rates and
the study’s findings on how both experienced and witnessed incivility can affect an employee’s
organizational commitment, trust, organizational citizenship behavior and public services
motivation suggest that mitigating these occurrences should be a priority to resolve.
94
The findings in this study suggest that city councilmember education and outreach to help
mitigate uncivil occurrences should be a priority. Institutions that serve local officials to
promote greater civility with city councilmembers, such as ICMA, League of California Cities,
Institute for Local Government, etc., could implement study research findings into training
curriculum. For example, in discussions about the need for model civility, code of conducts, and
encouraging of team mentality (Manuel, 2020; Mounce, 2016), findings from this study could be
incorporated to highlight the high frequency of local government employees’ experiences with
city councilmember incivility. The implications and impacts of such incivility on organizational
commitment, trust, organizational citizenship behavior and public service motivation can also be
emphasized.
Implementing councilmember code of conducts and model civility programs could be an
effective leadership strategy for mitigating city councilmember incivility (Kuehne, 2022;
Bennett, 2021; Brunt, 2017). These types of documents serve to highlight and encourage
civility. For example, Kuehne (2022) suggest that elected leaders can model civility by striving
to treat everyone courteously, be inclusive, show respect, exercise self-control, take
responsibility, give consideration to all viewpoints, focus on the issues and avoid personalized
debate, and disagree agreeably and professional. As Rawlings (2017) argues, describing the
effects of incivility in training and through policies and programs provides individuals with the
ability to better understand and address theirs and others’ incivility, and ultimately reduces
incidence rates. Such civility-type documents, as Brunt (2017) argues, should be implemented
with a zero-tolerance policy for incivility. Ultimately, as Bennett (2021) argues, these codes of
conduct need to set forth a process for reporting alleged violations by an elected official so that
there is accountability. These procedures might detail how an allegation warrants an
95
investigation, who conducts the investigation, legal review of the allegations, and how to handle
complaints that are inappropriately used solely for political purposes (Bennett, 2021). A prime
example for the need of such a code comes from a situation in October, 2022. A city manager
had filed a harassment complaint against a city councilmember, as a councilmember had referred
to the city manager as incompetent, refused to address the city manager by name, including in
email communications between the two, and showed a pattern of demanding that the city
manager and other staff members produce information and complete tasks (Marino, 2022). An
internal investigation took place, allegations were sustained, and the city manager essentially
demanded that the city council adopt an updated code of conduct, since the city manager did not
see how the councilmember’s behavior would stop unless such an action took place (Marino,
2022). Enforcement of these codes can take form by each councilmembers signing a personal
pledge to behave consistently with the established policies (Gould, 2019). As Gould (2019)
argues, fellow councilmembers can gently remind their peers if they are straying from their joint
commitments in the code. Relying on staff for enforcement is unreasonable (Hanson, 2021;
Gould, 2019).
With relation to municipal employees, organizations can use the findings to understand
the effects of city councilmember incivility to better mitigate such impacts. For example, Anjum
et al. (2018) suggests that organizational leaders can acknowledge such difficulties at work and
provide the necessary support. Municipalities and professional development organizations can
also integrate this study’s findings into training and curriculum to teach employees to understand
impacts and mitigate the difficult situations before they elevate into additional confrontational
and/or uncivil incidents (Cho et al., 2016). One of those diffusion strategies, as Chiu et al.
(2021) argues, is collective humility. Humble employees in the organization can mitigate
96
workplace incivility and foster a more positive collaborative environment, which serves to
reduce stress and anxiety levels in employees (Chiu et al., 2021; Lim et al., 2008). To mitigate
the effects of incivility, others have suggested teaching humor appreciation (Mills et al., 2019),
emotional intelligence (Meires, 2018), and transformational leadership (Ford, 2020).
Additionally, Novak (2016) suggests five (5) strategies municipal managers can undertake in
dealing with uncivil councilmembers, especially in a public forum settings. First, if an employee
is being treated poorly in public, managers can physically stand alongside the employee. The
manager can help deflect questions and if possible, have the “target” sit down if making a
presentation. Secondly, the manager can interrupt and work to deflect the incivility. The
manager might request to delay discussion on the issue so that questions or issues could be more
thoroughly researched or put in writing. Thirdly, managers might enlist the support of the
governing body. The goal is not to “admonish” the individual councilmember, but to ensure that
group civility norms are being followed. Fourthly, if public discourse breaks down in a public
meeting, the mayor can use the gavel to move to recess as to regain control of the setting. Lastly,
if an elected official does something egregious to an employee, it is critical that someone, such as
another councilmember or manager, acknowledged that it occurred. Silence can be
misinterpreted as consent, and consent should never be given to verbal or physical abuse. Novak
(2016) continues by saying that local government managers set the standard in defining the
values and ensuring that the organization does not reward poor behavior. As such, cultivating
civility should be the cornerstone of leadership (Novak, 2016).
The public also benefits from these research findings, as all community residents are
affected by the decisions of their local government leaders and the productivity levels of their
municipal employees. Results from this study suggests that employees are negatively reacting to
97
their governing body’s incivility through lower organizational commitment, decreased trust,
lessoned positive workplace behaviors, and reduced motivation. In turn, community members
are not fully experiencing the highest levels of governmental goods and services.
Recommendations for Further Research
The research in this study, the literature, and practitioner discussion supports the need for
ongoing research surrounding city councilmember incivility and its effects. Few have
specifically studied how municipal employees react to their governing body’s incivility, but there
has been ample practitioner discussion about its effect on an organization (Manuel, 2020;
Manuel, 2020; Gould, 2019; Benest, 2018). Future research projects can focus on specific
practitioner claims that city council incivility affects retention and recruitment (Gould, 2019),
undercuts efforts to accomplish community goals, and detracts from recruiting talent (Benest,
2018). Future research projects could focus on the effects city council incivility has externally to
the organization, for example, how such incivility might erode public confidence (Manuel, 2020)
or erode public trust with residents (Mutz & Reeves, 2005).
Similar to previous research conducted on workplace incivility, this study focused on the
direct, negative effects of such incivility on attitudes, behaviors and outcomes (Schilpzand et al.,
2016). As such, results from this study found a moderate to strong negative correlation between
witnessed incivility and trust with city councilmembers (r = -.522). However, Jawahar &
Schreurs (2018) argue that “very few studies have investigated mediators, moderators, or
boundary conditions of these relationships” (p. 719). As such, their study found trust as a
mediating phenomenon between incivility and work engagement (Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018). A
future study could exam how trust with city councilmembers might act as a mediator or
moderator with the other outcome variables in this study.
98
This study found that those in executive leadership have, in general, higher levels of
organizational affective commitment, trust with city councilmembers, organizational citizenship
behavior, and public service motivation compared to those in middle management and front-line
workers. Certainly, this does not seem surprising since those who are most committed to public
service, to their organization, and are likely to perform extra tasks above and beyond what is
required are more likely to be judged as effective and likely candidates for promotions to higher
level positions (Koo et al., 2020; Mercurio, 2015; Van Scotter, 2000). However, Kabat-Farr et
al. (2018) has argued that those with the highest level of commitment report more negative
responses to incivility compared to those less committed. Future studies can seek to understand
if the workplace literature parallels city councilmember incivility by affecting those most in
executive management compared to the others in middle management and front-line workers.
Further research could work toward complementing and strengthening the study’s
research design. As a strictly quantitative analysis study, future projects could focus on
qualitative investigations to gain a better understanding of first-hand experience, truthful
reporting, and quotations of actual conversations. Such a project could better make sense of the
reality and could help to alternatively develop explanatory models and theories. Future studies
could also work toward including additional randomization and random selection for their
sampling with a goal of increasing both internal and external validity. For example, this study’s
convenience sampling could limit generalizability of research findings.
It is recommended that future studies further explore the effects of witnessed incivility.
In their literature reviews of workplace incivility, Han et al. (2022) and Schilpzand et al. (2016)
found that the majority of workplace incivility studies focused on experienced incivility, and that
studies that examined workplace incivility was rather small. The results in this study found that
99
witnessed city councilmember incivility negatively affected a municipal employee’s
organizational affective commitment, trust with the city council, and public service motivation.
Future studies can further help explain these phenomena, including explaining why there is a
variation in trust between witnessed and experienced incivility and why only witnessed incivility
affects public service motivation.
Lastly, the literature documents effectiveness in establishing policies and training
programs to promote civility through workshops, case studies, coaching, and video presentations
for employees and managers to learn to both recognize and address incivility (Kabat-Farr et al.,
2018; Brunt, 2017; Rawlings, 2017; Cho et al., 2016; Pearson & Porath, 2009). Similarly, these
strategies of policies, trainings, codes of conducts, and models of civility are implemented in the
practitioner world to mitigate city councilmember incivility (Kuehne, 2022; Manuel, 2020;
Gould, 2019; Mounce, 2017; Mounce, 2016). Future research projects could evaluate these
types of city council interventions and test their effectiveness in reducing uncivil behaviors.
Conclusion
This study tested municipal employees’ level of reported experience with city council
incivility, both directly experienced and indirectly witnessed, and the employees’ organizational
affective commitment, trust with their city council, organizational citizenship behavior, and
public service motivation. Findings concluded that experiences, in some form, with city
councilmember incivility is widespread. Over a third of the respondents reported direct
experience with city councilmembers. Over a half more reported that even though they have not
had direct experience with incivility, they have at least witnessed it. Only a small fraction had
neither directly experienced nor indirectly witnessed such incivility.
100
The study also found that experiencing direct incivility from city councilmembers had a
negative relationship with an employee’s organizational commitment, contributed to lower levels
of trust with their city council, and higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior. Findings
from this study also indicate that indirectly witnessing city council incivility with another
municipal employee negatively affects employees’ organizational commitment, lowers levels of
trust with their city council, and negatively impacts their public service motivation.
The overarching role of government is to promote the overall welfare of the populace.
Municipalities are one of these levels of government and are generally responsible for achieving
the general welfare of the populace. These typically include services of overseeing parks and
recreation services, housing, police and fire departments, transportation services, emergency
medical services, and public works activities, such as signage, streets, and sewers, to name a few.
Elected officials typically oversee their municipal organization, and in exchange for power, the
populace maintains an expectation that their tax dollars will be spent and managed efficiently
(Oliveira, 2012). It is up to the governing bodies to ensure their municipal organizations are
operating at the highest efficiency levels to meet demands. Incivility is one of those areas that
threatens optimal organizational performance, so it is imperative that the phenomena is fully
understood by both academia and practitioners.

101
REFERENCES
Abdi, Herve & Williams, L. J. (2010). Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. In
Salkind, N. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2010.
Adams, G. A., & Webster, J. R. (2013). Emotional regulation as a mediator between
interpersonal mistreatment and distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 22(6), 697-710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.698057.
Andersen, C. M., & Bro, R. (2010). Variable selection in regression – a tutorial. Journal of
chemometrics, 24(11-12), 728-737. doi: 10.1002/cem.1360
Andersson, L. & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy for Management Review, 24, 452-471.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131
Anjum, A., Ming, X., Siddiqi, A. F., & Rasool, S. F. (2018). An empirical study analyzing job
productivity in toxic workplace environments. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 15(5), 1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15051035
Anthony, C. E. (2021). On the frontlines of today’s cities: trauma, challenges and solutions,
National League of Cities. https://www.nlc.org/resource/on-the-frontlines-of-todays-
cities-trauma-challenges-and-solutions/
Antoci, A., Bonelli, L., Paglieri, F., Reggiani, T., & Sabatini, F. (2019). Civility and trust in
social media. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 160, 83-99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.02.026
Arasli, H., Namin, B. H., & Abubakar, A. M. (2018). Workplace incivility as a moderator of the
relationships between polychronicity and job outcomes. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1245-1272.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2016-0655
Astley, W. G., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A
theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104-113.
doi:10.2307/258237
Bakker, A. B. (2015). A job demands-resources approach to public service motivation. Public
Administration Review, 75(5), 723-732. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12388
Balaguer-Coll, M. T., Brun-Martos, M. I., Marquez-Ramos, L., & Prior, D. (2019). Local
government efficiency: determinants and spatial interdependence. Applied Economics,
51(14), 1478-1494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1527458

102
Barling, F. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In G. R.
VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (eds.), Violence on the job: identifying risks and developing
solutions (pp. 29-49). American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10215-000
Barling, J., Rogers, A. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2011). Behind closed doors: In-home workers’
experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 6(3), 255-269. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-
8998.6.3.255
Benest, F. (2018). Winning the war for talent: The elected official’s role. Western City, 18 Aug.,
pp. 19-21. https://www.westerncity.com/article/winning-war-talent-elected-officials-role
Bennett, S. (2021). Bringing back decorum and civility in the public sector. Western City, 1 June.
https://www.westerncity.com/article/bringing-back-decorum-and-civility-public-sector
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98. https://doi.org/10.2307/259038
Bolino, M. C. & Klotz, A. C. (2015). The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: the
link between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 6, 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.026
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the
relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family
conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.90.4.740
Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!
Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(1), 56-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037583
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under
pressure: What’s a “good soldier” to do?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6),
835-855. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.635
Boyte, H. & Kari, N. N. (1999). Renewing the democratic spirt in American colleges and
universities: Higher education as public work. In Erlich, T. (eds.), Higher Education and
Civic Responsibility, Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high levels of public service motivation: Who are they,
where are they and what do they want?. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
25(2), 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X04272360
Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction
and turnover intentions of public employees? The American Review of Public
Administration, 38(2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008317248
103
Brunt, B. (2017). Breaking the cycle of horizontal violence. Ohio Nurses Review, 93(3), 27-32.
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/17164
Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding
experiences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1),
87. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0030987
Calabrese, A. (2015). Liberalism’s disease: civility above justice. European Journal of
Communication, 30(5), 539-553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115595306
Calhoun, C. (2000). The virtue of civility. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(3), 251-275.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2672847
California Government Code §34502. California Office of Legislative Council. Retrieved August
28, 2020. https://legislativecounsel.ca.gov/
Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: integrating
incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 754-771.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
Carroll, D.A. & Johnson, T. (2010). Examining small town revenues: To what extent are they
diversified?. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 223-235.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02129.x
Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. Basic Books.
Cascio, W. F. (2006). The economic impact of employee behaviors on organizational
performance. In Lawler, E. E. & O’Toole, J. (eds.) America at Work (pp. 241-156).
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Chen, C., Chen, D. & Xu, C. (2018). Applying self-determination theory to understand public
employee’s motivation for a public service career: An East Asian case (Taiwan). Public
Performance & Management Review, 41(2), 365-389.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1431135
Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., & Hong, Y. (2013). Self-love’s lost
labor: A self-enhancement model of workplace incivility. Academy of Management
Journal, 56(4), 1199-1219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0906
Chiu, C. Y. C., Marrone, J. A., & Tuckey, M. R. (2021). How do humble people mitigate group
incivility? An examination of the social oil hypothesis of collective humility. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 26(5), 361-373.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ocp0000244
Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., Han, S. J., & Lee, K. H. (2016). Workplace incivility and its effects upon
restaurant frontline service employee emotions and service performance. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(12), 2888-2912.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2015-0205
104
Christensen, R. K., Paarlberg, L., & Perry, J.L. (2017). Public service motivation research:
lessons for practice. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 529-542.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12796
Chughati, A., Byrne, M. and Flood, B. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-
being: the role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 3, pp. 653-
663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2126-7
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of
incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2
nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4324/9780203771587
Cohn, S. (2022). Reject politics of divisiveness and incivility, Laguna Beach Independent, 4
Nov. https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/letter-reject-politics-of-divisiveness-and-
incivility/
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. and LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a
meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 909-927.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Connolly, W. E. (1999). Why I am not a Secularist. University of Minnesota Press.
Cook, J. & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitudes measures of trust, organizational commitment,
and need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39-52.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
Cortina, L M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). Incivility in the workplace:
incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64-80.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective
incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of
Management, 39(6), 1579-1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J. & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The
past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 22(3), 299-313. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ocp0000089
Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2004). The Sage Dictionary of Statistics: A Practical Resource for
Students in the Social Sciences. SAGE.
Creswell, J & Creswell, J. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Sage Productions.
105
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dalal, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior
and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
Daniels, S. R., & Jordan, S. L. (2019). The effect of paternalism on incivility: exploring incivility
climate as an important boundary condition. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 26(2), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818795817
De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2018). Self-efficacy to spur job performance.
Management Decision, 56(4), 891-907. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2017-0187
De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., Azeem, M. U., & Ahmad, H. N. (2019). The relationship between
workplace incivility and helping behavior: Roles of job dissatisfaction and political skill.
The Journal of Psychology, 153(5), 507-527.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1567453
DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Gender Dimensions of Public Service
Motivation. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 873–887.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00655.x
Demsky, C. A. (2019). Unpacking the role of power in incivility. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 12(4), 408-411. doi:10.1017/iop.2019.81
Demsky, C. A., Fritz, C., Hammer, L. B., & Black, A. E. (2019). Workplace incivility and
employee sleep: The role of rumination and recovery experiences. Journal of
Occupational Healthy Psychology, 24(2), 228.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ocp0000116
Duffy, M. K., & Lee, K. (2012). Negative interpersonal exchanges in teams. In Eby, L. T. &
Allen, T. D. (eds), Personal Relationships: The Effects of Employee Attitudes, Behavior,
and Well Being (pp. 195-219). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Egan, M. (2014). 2008: Worse than the great depression?. CNN Money, 27 Aug.
https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/news/economy/ben-bernanke-great-
depression/index.html
Elias, N. (1978). The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners (1
st
American ed.). New York:
Urizen Books.
Estes, B. & Wang, J. (2008). Integrative literature review: Workplace incivility: impacts on
individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2),
2018-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308315565

106
Everyday Ethics for Local Officials (2003). Promoting Civility at Public Meetings: Concepts and
Practice, Institute for Local Government, Aug/Oct. https://www.ca-
ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/promoting_civility_at_public_meetings_-
_concepts_and_practices__.pdf
Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5
th
ed.).
SAGE.
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS: and Sex, Drugs and Rock “n” Roll (2
nd

ed.). Sage Publications.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and
coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150
Ford, T. (2020). Improving Workplace Incivility by Educating Frontline Nurse Leaders: The
Charge Nurse. PhD diss., Gardner-Webb University. https://digitalcommons.gardner-
webb.edu/nursing-dnp/7
Forni, P. M. (2010). Choosing Civility: The Twenty-five Rules of Considerate Conduct. St.
Martin’s Press.
Fowler, F. J. (2008). Survey Research Methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fox, G. (1996). Hispanic Nation: Culture, Politics and the Constructing of Identify. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Gao, J. (2015). Public service motivation: A cross-national examination of East Asian countries.
PhD diss., University of Tennessee. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3580
Gardner, C. (1995). Passing by: Gender and Public Harassment. University of California Press.
Ghosh, R., Reio, T. G. & Bang, H. (2013). Reducing turnover intent: supervisor and co-worker
incivility and socialization-related learning. Human Resource Development International,
16(2), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.756199
Giumetti, G. W., Hatfield, A. L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A. N., Muth, E. R., & Kowalski, R. M.
(2013). What a rude e-mail! examining the differential effects of incivility versus support
on mood, energy, engagement, and performance in an online contact. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032851
Gould, R. (2019). Beyond ethics: Establishing a code of conduct to guide your council. Western
City, 1 Dec. https://www.westerncity.com/article/beyond-ethics-establishing-code-
conduct-guide-your-council
Graham, J. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385031
107
Greensweig, D. J., Gourlay, A., & Kao, I. (2016). Increasing productive communication in local
government and decreasing barriers to community interactions. Mitchell Hamline Law
Review, 42(5), 8. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol42/iss5/8
Groves, H. E. (1951). Separate but equal –The doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson. Phylon (1940-
1956), 12(1), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.2307/272323
Guba, E. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In Guba, E. (eds.), The Paradigm Dialog
(pp.17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Han, S., Harold, C. M., Oh, I., Kim, J. K., & Agolli, A. (2022). A meta‐analysis integrating
20 years of workplace incivility research: Antecedents, consequences, and boundary
conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(3), 497–523.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2568
Hanson, L. (2021). A time to lead with civility. Georgia’s Cities Magazine, 3 Dec.
https://www.gacities.com/News/Viewpoints/A-Time-to-Lead-with-Civility.aspx
Harcourt, B. E. (2010). The politics of incivility. Arizona Law Review, 54, 345-373.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2020679
Herbst, S. (2010). Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Temple
University Press.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile
constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
32(3), 499-519. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.689
Hershcovis, M. S., Neville, L., Reich, T. C., Christie, A. M., Cortina, L. M., & Shan, J. V.
(2017). Witnessing wrongdoing: the effects of observer power on incivility intervention
in the workplace. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 45-57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.006
Hershcovis, M. S., Ogunfowara, B., Reich, T. C., & Christie, A. M. (2017). Targeted workplace
incivility: The roles of belongingness, embarrassment, and power. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1057-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2183
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Holm, K., Torkelson, E., & Backstrom, M. (2015). Models of workplace incivility: The
relationships to instigated incivility and negative outcomes. BioMed Research
International, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/920239
Hondeghem, A., & Perry, J. (2009). EGPA symposium on public service motivation and
performance: Introduction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 5-9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852308099502
108
Irum, A., Ghosh, K., & Pandey, A. (2020). Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding: A
research agenda. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(3), 958-980.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2019-0213
Jamal, R. & Siddiqui, D. A. (2020). The Effects of Workplace Incivility on Job Satisfaction:
Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation, Emotional Exhaustion. International Journal of Human Resource
Studies, 10(2), 56-81. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v10i2.16389
Jamieson, K. H., Volinsky, A., Weitz, I., & Kenski, K. (2017). The political uses and abuses of
civility and incivility. In Kenski, K & Jamieson, K. H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Political Communication (pp. 205-218), Sheridan Books, Inc.
Jawahar, I. M., & Schreurs, B. (2018). Supervisor incivility and how it affects subordinances’
performance: a matter of trust. Personnel Review, 47(3), 709-726.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2017-0022
Jensen, J., Cole, M., & Rubin, R. (2019). Predicting retail shrink from performance pressure,
ethical leader behavior, and store-level incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
40(6), 723-739. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2366
Johnson, P R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel
Management, 30(4), 457-565. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600103000403
Jordaan, J. (2013). Public Financial Performance Management in South Africa: A Conceptual
Approach. PhD diss., University of Pretoria. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/24808
Judge, T. A. & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple
source casual analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 56, 388-
421. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1061
Kabat-Farr, D., Cortina, L. M., & Marchiondo, L. A. (2018). The emotional aftermath of
incivility: Anger, guilt, and the role of organizational commitment. International Journal
of Stress Management, 25(2), 109. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000045
Kalen-Sukra, D. (2019). Understanding the root causes of incivility, bullying, and toxic culture.
Municipal World, 1 Jan. https://www.municipalworld.com/feature-story/incivility-root-
causes/
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach and inhibition.
Psychological review, 110(2), 265-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Kern, J. H., & Grandey, A. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: The role of race
and racial identity for service employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
14(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012684

109
Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2020). Emotional intelligence: A preventive
strategy to manage destructive influence of conflict in large scale projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 38(1), 36-46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.11.001
Kim, H., & Qu, H. (2019). Employees’ burnout and emotional intelligence as mediator and
moderator in the negative spiral of incivility. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 31(3), 1412-1431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2017-
0794
Kim, S., Vandenabeele, W., Wright, B., Anderson, L., Cerase, F., Christensen, R., Desmarais, C.,
Koumenta, M., Leisink, Pl, Liu, B., Palidauskaite, J., Pedersen, L., Perry, J., Ritz, A.,
Taylor, J., & De Vivo, P. (2013). Investigating the structure and meaning of public
service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and
addressing issues of measurement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 23(1), 79-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus027
Kim, T. Y. & Shapiro, D. L. (2008). Retaliation against supervisory mistreatment: Negative
emotion, group membership, and cross-cultural difference. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 19(4), 339-358. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810909293
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Gilford
Publications.
Koo, B., Yu, J., Chua, B. L., Lee, S., & Han, H. (2020). Relationships among emotional and
material rewards, job satisfaction, burnout, affective commitment, job performance, and
turnover intention in the hotel industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, 21(4), 371-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2019.1663572
Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A
daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management
Journal, 59(2), 414-435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0262
Kosmidis, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2020). Can social media incivility induce enthusiasm? Evidence
from survey experiments. Public Opinion Quarter, 84(S1), 284-308.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa014
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors
be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15(2), 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018349
Kuehne, M. (2022). Breaking the cycle: Steps for reducing negative discourse and incivility in
public meetings. Western City, 1 Jan. https://www.westerncity.com/article/breaking-
cycle-steps-reducing-negative-discourse-and-incivility-public-meetings
Laguilles, J. S., Williams, E. A., & Saunders, D. B. (2011). Can lottery incentives boost web
survey response rates? Findings from four experiments. Research in Higher Education,
52(5), 537-553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9203-2
110
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported
cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-
220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919
Langlois, L. E., Shannon, H. S., Griffith, L., Haines, T., Cortina, L. M., & Geldart, S. (2007).
The effects of workplace incivility on psychological distress and health. Occupational &
Environmental Medicine, 64(12), 24-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2095345
Laschinger, H. K. S., Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin-Oore, D., & Mackinnon, S. P. (2012).
Building empowering work environments that foster civility and organizational trust:
Testing an intervention. Nursing Research, 61(5), 316-325.
doi:10.1097/NNR.0b013e318265a58d
Laverty, M. (2010). Civility, tact, and the joy of communication. In Kerdeman, D. (eds).
Philosophy of Education Archive, 228-237. Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
Levin, I. & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of negative
affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752-758. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.74.5.752
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and
impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
483-496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483
Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family
support help?. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95-111.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021726
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impacts on
work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95-107.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95
Lim, S., Llies, R., Koopman, J., Christoforou, P., & Arvey, R. D. (2018). Emotional mechanisms
linking incivility at work to aggression and withdrawal at home: An experience-sampling
study. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2888-2908.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316654544
Lim, V. K., & Teo, T. S. (2009). Mind your e-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees’
work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46(8), 419-425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.06.006
Lin, J. (2018). Retirement debt: what’s the problem and how does it affect you? CalMatters, 21
Feb. https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-retirement-pension-debt-explainer/
111
Liu, W., Zhou, Z. E., & Che, X. X. (2019). Effect of workplace incivility on OCB through
burnout: The moderating role of affective commitment. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 34(5), 657-669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9591-4
Lucas, S. R. (2016). Where the rubber meets the road: Probability and nonprobability
movements in experiment, interview, archival, administrative, and ethnographic data
collection. Socius, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116634709
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse: Generation
and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management Communication Quarterly,
16(4), 471-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318903251627
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J. & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor
analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611-637.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_06
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang S. & Hong S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.
Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.
Mackey, J. D., Bishoff, J D., Daniels, S. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2019).
Incivility’s relationship with workplace outcomes: Enactment as a boundary condition in
two samples. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 513-528.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3492-8
MacKinnon, D. P. & Valente, M. (2019). Mediation Analysis. Oxford University Press.
Manuel, E. L. (2020). Civility as a tonic for what ails local democracy. Western City, 1 Dec.
https://www.westerncity.com/article/civility-tonic-what-ails-local-democracy
Manuel, E. L. (2020). Civility needed to stem eroding confidence in democratic institutions.
CalMatters, 16 Nov. https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2020/11/civility-needed-
to-stem-eroding-confidence-in-democratic-institutions/
Marino, P. (2022). Investigation sustains harassment complaints against P.G. councilmember.
Monterey County NOW, 20 Oct.
https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/investigation-sustains-
harassment-complaints-against-p-g-councilmember/article_55d15b3e-4fe2-11ed-b46d-
178183fc8393.html
Martin, R., Hine, D. (2005). Development and validation of the uncivil workplace behavior
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 477–490.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.477
Mathers, E. (2017). Restore civility to save America: Cynicism is threating the stability of our
county. PM Magazine, 27 Oct. https://icma.org/blog-posts/restore-civility-save-america
112
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integration model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
Mayo, C. (2001). Civility and its discontents: Sexuality, race, and the lure of beautiful manners.
Philosophy of Education Archive, 78-87.
https://educationjournal.web.illinois.edu/archive/index.php/pes/article/view/1873.pdf
McCormick, K., & Salcedo, J. (2020). SPSS statistics for dummies. John Wiley & Sons.
McGrath, M. (2016). Making ends meet: A national conversation on spreading wealth and
opportunity, National Civic Review, 105(1), 54-56. DOI: 10.1002/ncr.21260
Meires, J. (2018). Workplace incivility. The essentials: Using emotional intelligence to curtail
bullying in the workplace. Urologic Nursing, 38(3), 150-153.
Mercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment:
An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 14(4), 389-414.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484315603612
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, J. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension to test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective continuance,
and normative commitment to an organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents,
correlates, and consequence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Meyers, L., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. (2017). Applied multivariate research: design and
interpretation (3
rd
Ed.). Sage Publications.
Mills, C. B., Keller, M., Chilcutt, A., & Nelson, M. D. (2019). No laughing matter: Workplace
bullying, humor orientation, and leadership styles. Workplace Health & Safety, 67(4),
159-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079918811318
Miner, K. & Eischeid, A. (2012). Observing incivility toward coworkers and negative emotions:
Do gender of the target and observer matter?. Sex Roles, 66(7), 492-505.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0108-0
113
Miner, K. N., Diaz, I., Wooderson, R. L., McDonald, J. N., Smittick, A. L., & Lomeli, L. C.
(2018). A workplace incivility roadmap: Identifying theoretical speedbumps and
alternative routes for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(3),
320. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000093
Miner, K. N., Settles, I. H., Pratt-Hyatt, J. S., & Brandy, C. C. (2012). Experiencing incivility in
organizations: The buffering effects of emotional and organizational support. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 340-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2011.00891.x
Miner-Rubino, K. & Reed, W. D. (2010). Testing a moderated mediational model of workgroup
incivility: The roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 40(12), 3148-3168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00695.x
Miner-Rubio, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women:
Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
9(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.107
Moon, T. W., & Hur, W. M. (2018). Go home and kick the dog: Spillover effects of experienced
coworker incivility on customer-directed counterproductive work behavior. Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, 28(5), 554-575. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-03-2018-0052
Mounce, J. (2016). How effective if your council? Western City, 1 Nov.
https://www.westerncity.com/article/how-effective-your-council
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on
political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
Nelson, K. L, Gabris, G. T., & Davis, T. J. (2011). What makes municipal councils effective? An
empirical analysis of how council members perceive their group interactions and
processes. State and Local Government Review, 43(3), 196-204.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X11424913
Novak, J. (2016). Cultivating Civility in Local Government. International City/County
Management Association - Blog Post, 16 Feb. https://icma.org/blog-posts/cultivating-
civility-local-government
Nunnally, J. C. (1987). Psychometric Theory (2
nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ocampo, L., Acedillo, V., Bacunador, A. M., Balo, C. C., Lagdameo, Y. J., & Tupa, N. S.
(2018). A historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first century. Personnel Review, 47(4), 821-
862. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
114
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.
Lexington Books/DC Health and Com.
Pandey, S. K., & Stazyk, E. C. (2008). Antecedents and correlates of Public Service Motivation.
In Service, Perry, J. L. & Hondeghem, A. (eds.), Motivation in Public Management: The
Call of Public (pp. 101-117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Park, S. (2017). Local revenue structure under economic hardship: Reliance on alternative
revenue sources in California counties. Local Government Studies, 43(4), 645-667.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1305956
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2004). On incivility, its impact, and directions for future
research. In Griffin, R. W. & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (eds.), The Dark Side of Organizational
Behavior (pp. 403-425). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace
incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1),
7-18. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841946
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace
incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-
2616(00)00019-X
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(7), 777-796. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.336
Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and
validity. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 6(1), 5-22.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and Educational Research. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). 163 U.S. 537.
Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H. (2018). Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological
synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4),
713-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12509
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141. doi: 10.1037/a0013079
Porath, C. L. (2016). The hidden toll of workplace incivility. The McKinsey Quarterly, 14 Dec.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2371882142?pq-
origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
115
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task
performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181-1197.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919
Porath, C. L., MacInnis, D., & Folkes, V. (2010). Witnessing incivility among employees:
Effects on consumer anger and negative inferences about companies. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(2), 292-303. https://doi.org/10.1086/651565
Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace
incivility and the impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
42(S1), E326-E357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x
Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1-
2), 114-121. https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility
Porath, C. L., Overbeck, J. R., & Pearson, C. M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How
individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1945–
1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00375.x
Porter, L., Crampton, W. & Smith, F. (1976). Organizational commitment and managerial
turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
15(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90030-1
Potipiroon, W. & Faerman, S. (2016). What difference do ethical leaders make? Exploring the
mediating role of interpersonal justice and the moderating role of public service
motivation. International Public Management Journal, 19(2), 171-207.
doi:10.1080/10967494.2016.1141813
Poturica, M. M. & Urban, D. A. (2007). A city council member’s role with respect to individual
city employees. Western City, 1 Mar. https://www.westerncity.com/article/city-council-
members-role-respect-individual-city-employees
Rahim, A. & Cosby, D. M. (2016). A model of workplace incivility, job burnout, turnover
intentions, and job performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(10), 1255-
1265. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0138
Rains, S. (2019). Local governance, civil discourse, and social media: charting incivility from
and directed at Tuscon-area elected officials, PhD diss., University of Arizona,
https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/images/local_governance_civil_dis
course_and_social_media_final_pdf.pdf
Rawlings, L. (2017). Faculty and study incivility in undergraduate nursing education: An
integrative review. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(12), 709-716.
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20171120-02

116
Reo, T. G., & Trudel, J. (2013). Workplace incivility and conflict management styles: Predicting
job performance, organizational commitment and turnover intent. International Journal
of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 4(4), 15-37.
doi:10.4018/ijavet.2013100102
Rheault, L., Rayment, E. & Musulan, A. (2019). Politicians in the line of fire: Incivility and the
treatment of women on social media. Research and Politics, 6(1), 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018816228
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:
the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(5), 825-836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
Riccucci, N. M. (2018). Antecedents of public service motivation: The role of gender.
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 115-126.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx010
Rivera, J. D. (2019). When attaining the best sample is out of reach: Nonprobability alternatives
when engaging in public administration research. Journal of Public Affairs Education,
25(3), 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2018.1429821
Rood, C. (2013). Rhetorics of civility: Theory, pedagogy, and practice in speaking and writing
textbooks. Rhetoric Review, 32(3), 331-348.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2013.797879
Rood, C. (2014). “Moves” toward rhetorical civility. Pedagogy, 14(3), 395-415.
doi:10.1215/15314200-2715778
Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and
counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support.
Journal of Occupational Healthy Psychology, 17(2), 150.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027350
Sammut, R., Griscti, O., & Norman, I. J. (2021). Strategies to improve response rates to web
surveys: a literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 123, 104058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104058
Schaefer, L. (2015). History and civility. NAMTA Journal, 40(1), 103-111.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life
orientation test. Journal of Personality and Society Psychology, 67(6), 1063-1078.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
117
Schilpzand, P., De Paer, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature
and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57-S88.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976
Seifert, S. & Nieswand, M. (2014). What drives intermediate local governments’ spending
efficiency: The case of French departments. Local Government Studies, 40(5), 766-790.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.812962
Shandwick, W., Tate, P. & KRC Research. (2019). Civility in America 2019: Solutions for
Tomorrow. Weber Shadwick, 26 Jun. https://www.webershandwick.com/news/civility-in-
america-2019-solutions-for-tomorrow/
Slattery, J. (2019). Incivility and Local Governance: An Investigation of Municipal Leaders’
Experience of Workplace Incivility. PhD diss., Northeastern University.
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/incivility-local-governance-
investigation/docview/2283353986/se-2
Slife, B. & Williams, R. (1995). What’s Behind the Research? Discovering Hidden Assumptions
in the Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sliter, K. A., Sliter, M. T., Withrow, S. A., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Employee adiposity and
incivility: Establishing a link and identifying demographic moderators and negative
consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 409–424.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029862
Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K., & McInnerney, J. (2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a
mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 15(4), 468-481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020723
Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple
sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.767
Smothers, A. E., & Lawton, D. S. (2017). Impact of perceived leadership styles of an elected
official on organizational commitment in the municipal sector. i-Manager’s Journal on
Management, 11(4), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.26634/jmgt.11.4.13449
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723
Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk
radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-components model of
organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70
118
Spector, P. E. & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some
parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Resources Management Review, 12(2), 269-292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Theorizing about the deviant citizen: An attributional
explanation of the interplay of organizational citizenship and counterproductive work
behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 132-143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.06.002
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know
what we think we know?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019477
Spence Laschinger, H. K., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment,
incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal
of Nursing Management, 17(3), 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2834.2009.00999.x
Spencer, L. G., & Lynch, J. (2016). Possibilities for inclusive family and community in beth
stroud’s “Walking in the light”. JSTOR, 3(1), 61-82.
https://doi.org/10.14321/qed.3.1.0061
Spencer, L. G., Tyahur, P. M., & Jackson, J. A (2016). Civility and academic freedom:
Extending the conversation. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 6(3/4), 50-61.
Stevens, J.P. (1984). Outliers and influential data points in regression analysis. Psychological
bulletin, 95(2), 334-344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.2.334
Striplin, K. (2002). How to respond to harassment and incivility without sacrificing civic debate,
Western City, 1 Sept. https://www.westerncity.com/article/how-respond-harassment-and-
incivility-without-sacrificing-civic-debate
Taylor, S. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to
workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17, 316–329. doi:10.1037/a0028211
Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking workplace incivility to
citizenship performance: The combined effects of affective commitment and
conscientiousness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 878-893.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.773
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
119
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-
situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
Trudel, J., & Reio, T. G. (2011). Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict
management styles—Antecedent or antidote?. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
22(4), 395–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20081
Van Scotter, J. R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with
turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management
Review, 10(1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00040-6
Vandenabeele, W., & Van de Walle, S. (2008). International differences in public service
motivation: Comparing regions across the world. In Perry, J. L. & Hondeghem A. (eds),
Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public service (pp. 223-244). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Vasconcelos, A. F. (2020). Workplace incivility: A literature review. International Journal of
Workplace Health Management, 13(5), 513-542. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-11-
2019-0137
Vickers, M. H. (2006). Writing what’s relevant: Workplace incivility in public administration –
A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(1), 69-88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2006.11029525
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D.S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2389.00151
Vogelsang-Coombs, V. (2012). Toward the civil city council. State and Local Government
Review, 44(3), 208-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X12457184
Walfish, S. (2006). A review of statistical outlier methods. Pharmaceutical technology, 30(11),
82-88.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw, B. M. &
Cummings, L. L. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of
Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Whitman, J. Q. (2000). Enforcing civility and respect: three societies. The Yale Law Journal,
109(6), 1279-1398. https://doi.org/10.2307/797466
Yun, G. W., Allgayer, S., & Park, S. Y. (2020). Mind your social media manners: Pseudonymity,
imaginary audience, and incivility on Facebook vs. YouTube. International Journal of
Communication, 14, 3418-3438.
120
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the
workplace. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (eds.), Bullying and
Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice
(pp. 103-126). London: Taylor & Francis.
Zauderer, D. G. (2002). Workplace incivility and the management of human capital. Public
Manager, 31(1), 36-42. http://dzauderer.com/incivility.pdf
Zhou, H., Deng, Z., Xia, Y., & Fu, M. (2016). A new sampling method in particle fiber based on
Pearson correlation coefficient. Neurocomputing, 216(5), 208-215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.07.036
Zhou, Z. E., Meier, L. L., & Spector, P. E. (2019). The spillover effects of coworker, supervisor,
and outsider workplace incivility on work-to-family conflict: A weekly diary design.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9-10), 1000-1012.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2401
Zia-un-Din, M., Arif, A., & Shabbir, M. A. (2017). The impact of workplace incivility on
employee absenteeism and organization commitment. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(5), 205-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i5/2893

121
APPENDIX A: IRB INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH

122

123

124
APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

125
126

127
128

129
130

131
132

133
134

Abstract (if available)

Abstract There have been recent discussions between practitioners in the city management field regarding city council incivility, but few, if any, have specifically studied how municipal employees react to their governing body’s incivility. This study aims to understand how municipal employees’ experiences with city councilmember incivility affects their organizational affective commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, level of trust with the city council, and public service motivation. A cross-sectional, convenience sampling was utilized in this quantitative study, and survey participants derived from multiple professional organizations throughout the State of California that comprised of municipal employees. Survey response was N = 517, and analyses revealed that ninety-one percent (91%) of respondents had endured some form of incivility from their city councilmembers while at their municipality in the previous five (5) years. This study also found that a negative relationship exists with a municipal employee’s direct experience with city council incivility and their organizational affective commitment, trust with the city council, and a positive relationship with their organizational citizenship behavior. Indirectly witnessing of city councilmember incivility with another municipal employee negatively affects their organizational affective commitment, trust with the city council, and their public service motivation. Findings demonstrate that municipal employees’ experiences, in some form, with city councilmember incivility is both widespread and impactful to the organization. Study outcomes add to a growing body of literature on organizational incivility by focusing on a limited research population – municipal government employees – and is useful to broadening practitioner understanding and knowledge on the subject topic.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance

PDF

Local votes and outside money: campaign contribution geographic origins and their impact on Los Angeles City Council election outcomes

PDF

A strategic talent management retention model: an effective way to shape the United States Space Force

PDF

A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

A stakeholder approach to reimagining private departments of public safety: the implementation of a community advisory board recommendation report

PDF

Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)

PDF

Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports

PDF

The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps

PDF

The crisis of potable water in Mexico City: institutional factors and water property rights as conditions for creating adequate metropolitan water governance

PDF

Factors affecting city government emergency preparedness

PDF

The risks and rewards of city management: how city managers evaluate the nature of the job and compensation

PDF

Diversity management in local government: a gap analysis

PDF

Choice neighborhoods: a spatial and exploratory analysis of Housing Authority City of Los Angeles public housing

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Simple majority or supermajority: what do California's special tax initiatives mean for local governance?

PDF

The Human Performance Intention experiment. A quantum field framework

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Good intentions are not enough: exploring implicit racial bias in philanthropy

PDF

Mission match, reputation, and bureaucratic motivation

Asset Metadata

Creator Kearney, Kevin Ryan (author)

Core Title Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Planning and Development,Policy

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 01/11/2023

Defense Date 11/22/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag board of directors,cities,city,city council,city management,community,councilmember,counties,elected official,governing body,government,incivility,level of trust,local government,municipal government,municipality,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational affective commitment,organizational citizenship behavior,public service motivation,workplace incivility,workplace norms

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robertson, Peter (committee chair), Lazzaretto, Dominic (committee member), Resh, William (committee member)

Creator Email krkearne@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112716011

Unique identifier UC112716011

Identifier etd-KearneyKev-11409.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-KearneyKev-11409

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Kearney, Kevin Ryan

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230118-usctheses-batch-1001 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu